Gyroscopic Investing

Government overreach....or sensible legislation against horrible stupid fashion trend that doesn't seem to want to die: http://www.myfoxorlando.com/story/26041 ... d-property

I always think to myself, How can that be comfortable?

That fashion trend is a total mystery to me....but 20 years ago kids were doing it and somehow it continues to this day. Its baffling....it seems about as comfortable and sensible as wearing your shoes on the wrong feet. Ironically the thugs that dress that way often end up getting caught cause their pants keep falling down as they try to run

doodle wrote: Ironically the thugs that dress that way often end up getting caught cause their pants keep falling down as they try to run

I have often thought the same thing. And for that reason, I wholeheartedly oppose such a ban: in the interest of hilarity!

"The city council voted..."

Those are safe words (as opposed to the president of the US today made mandatory...).  So when San Francisco/Seattle/NYC makes conservatives literally sit in the back of the bus, it is fine if that is what the locals want. 

The closer the decision making to the people being effected (affected?) the better off people are, the more disconnected/remote, the worse off people are likely to be.  Well aside from people who get off controlling other people.

The saggy-pants fashion originated in the loose-fitting pants worn by prison inmates:

Sagging pants became the behind-the-bars thing thanks to ill-fitting prison-issue garb: some of those incarcerated were provided with clothing a few sizes too large. That oversizing, coupled with the lack of belts in the big house, led to a great number of jailbirds whose pants were falling off their arses. (Belts are not permitted in most correctional facilities because all too often the lifeless bodies of their inmate owners have been found hanging from them.)

Source: http://www.snopes.com/risque/homosex/sagging.asp

That's what I've always heard, Tortoise. Prison fashion, no belts. Same reason for sneakers without laces.

P.J O'Rourke's advice to baggy pants wearers:  "Pull up your pants, turn your hat around, and get a job"

So maybe Ocala is really starting a jobs program.

I don't care nearly as much about government overreach at the municipality/county level. 

With that said, this doesn't get to the root of the problem, which stems from the fact that in many communities, prison/thug culture is accepted and in many cases revered. 

MangoMan wrote:
Sometimes I am mystified by the direction comments on this board go. Yes, it's a stupid fashion modeled on something that is certainly not to be emulated. But let's get real. Do we want the gov't, local or otherwise, telling us what is acceptable to wear? Last time I checked [despite what some posters here claim] this is still a free country.

+1

clacy wrote: I don't care nearly as much about government overreach at the municipality/county level. 

With that said, this doesn't get to the root of the problem, which stems from the fact that in many communities, prison/thug culture is accepted and in many cases revered.

Why don't you?  Tyranny is tyranny.  Is there really any difference if 300,000 people are oppressing me vs 300,000,000?

And to your other point, I'd agree a lot more with you if being in prison was indicative of an actual wrong-doing. Once you start arresting people for smoking a weed, you kind of lose the moral authority to criticize "thug culture."  Of course a culture is going to evolve around being arrested for victimless crimes.

moda0306 wrote: Why don't you?  Tyranny is tyranny.  Is there really any difference if 300,000 people are oppressing me vs 300,000,000?

And to your other point, I'd agree a lot more with you if being in prison was indicative of an actual wrong-doing. Once you start arresting people for smoking a weed, you kind of lose the moral authority to criticize "thug culture."  Of course a culture is going to evolve around being arrested for victimless crimes.

I hate to +1, but +1.

moda0306 wrote:

clacy wrote: I don't care nearly as much about government overreach at the municipality/county level. 

With that said, this doesn't get to the root of the problem, which stems from the fact that in many communities, prison/thug culture is accepted and in many cases revered.

Why don't you?  Tyranny is tyranny.  Is there really any difference if 300,000 people are oppressing me vs 300,000,000?

And to your other point, I'd agree a lot more with you if being in prison was indicative of an actual wrong-doing. Once you start arresting people for smoking a weed, you kind of lose the moral authority to criticize "thug culture."  Of course a culture is going to evolve around being arrested for victimless crimes.

Because I think States, Cities, Counties are the place for most governmental regulation.  I say that because if I disagree with my local political policies, I can fairly easily move to the suburb next door.  I can also get far more involved and use my social circle, etc, to help change the law/leadership/etc.

It's the same principle I use with unions.  I'm perfectly fine with private unions.  Public unions, I detest.  I have no or very little recourse with public unions.  If they negotiate rich contracts, I have no alternative but to pay my taxes.

If a private company is unionized, and over time becomes very uncompetitive, I will simply chose to do business with another firm that is more price competitive. The private sector is governed ultimately by it's customers.

Public sector employees, particularly at the Federal level,  force me to pay them by threat of jail time. 

Do we really want to start criminalizing bad taste? Personally I don't think it's a good idea. But if we do decide to go down that road, I suggest we start by indicting the entire 1970's.

• Bell bottom pants
• Ties and coat lapels wide enough to double as an airplane wing
• Platform shoes
• Mutton chop sideburns
• Lava lamps
• Disco
• Afros

And the coupe de grace...

• The plaid polyester leisure suit

clacy wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

clacy wrote: I don't care nearly as much about government overreach at the municipality/county level. 

With that said, this doesn't get to the root of the problem, which stems from the fact that in many communities, prison/thug culture is accepted and in many cases revered.

Why don't you?  Tyranny is tyranny.  Is there really any difference if 300,000 people are oppressing me vs 300,000,000?

And to your other point, I'd agree a lot more with you if being in prison was indicative of an actual wrong-doing. Once you start arresting people for smoking a weed, you kind of lose the moral authority to criticize "thug culture."  Of course a culture is going to evolve around being arrested for victimless crimes.

Because I think States, Cities, Counties are the place for most governmental regulation.  I say that because if I disagree with my local political policies, I can fairly easily move to the suburb next door.  I can also get far more involved and use my social circle, etc, to help change the law/leadership/etc.

It's the same principle I use with unions.  I'm perfectly fine with private unions.  Public unions, I detest.  I have no or very little recourse with public unions.  If they negotiate rich contracts, I have no alternative but to pay my taxes.

If a private company is unionized, and over time becomes very uncompetitive, I will simply chose to do business with another firm that is more price competitive. The private sector is governed ultimately by it's customers.

Public sector employees, particularly at the Federal level,  force me to pay them by threat of jail time. 

Everyone at every level of government forces you to either 1) pay, or 2) move. It's the same everywhere. Your only hope on having any material effect on a government is to live in a small town or become extremely involved. And lucky. And then you still have to deal with county and state laws, over which you have almost no control.  And this is all true whether or not the employees have unionized. 

Regarding moving, we have 200 countries to choose from... Hardly a monopoly. You can vote with your feet relatively easily relative to the burden of living under a government you hate for the next 40 years.

moda0306 wrote:

clacy wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Why don't you?  Tyranny is tyranny.  Is there really any difference if 300,000 people are oppressing me vs 300,000,000?

And to your other point, I'd agree a lot more with you if being in prison was indicative of an actual wrong-doing. Once you start arresting people for smoking a weed, you kind of lose the moral authority to criticize "thug culture."  Of course a culture is going to evolve around being arrested for victimless crimes.

Because I think States, Cities, Counties are the place for most governmental regulation.  I say that because if I disagree with my local political policies, I can fairly easily move to the suburb next door.  I can also get far more involved and use my social circle, etc, to help change the law/leadership/etc.

It's the same principle I use with unions.  I'm perfectly fine with private unions.  Public unions, I detest.  I have no or very little recourse with public unions.  If they negotiate rich contracts, I have no alternative but to pay my taxes.

If a private company is unionized, and over time becomes very uncompetitive, I will simply chose to do business with another firm that is more price competitive. The private sector is governed ultimately by it's customers.

Public sector employees, particularly at the Federal level,  force me to pay them by threat of jail time. 

Everyone at every level of government forces you to either 1) pay, or 2) move. It's the same everywhere. Your only hope on having any material effect on a government is to live in a small town or become extremely involved. And lucky. And then you still have to deal with county and state laws, over which you have almost no control.  And this is all true whether or not the employees have unionized. 

Regarding moving, we have 200 countries to choose from... Hardly a monopoly. You can vote with your feet relatively easily relative to the burden of living under a government you hate for the next 40 years.

As you said in your post, the smaller the community/government, the easier it is to influence.  I feel like you validated my point here.

You seem to favor higher taxes, by centralized/federal governments, but a municipality trying to get teenagers to shape up is "tyranny"? 

I would argue that relocating to the suburb next door, or to a different state for that matter is 20x easier than expatriating to avoid taxes and the US Federal reach.

MangoMan wrote:

clacy wrote: I'm perfectly fine with private unions.  Public unions, I detest.  I have no or very little recourse with public unions.  If they negotiate rich contracts, I have no alternative but to pay my taxes.

If a private company is unionized, and over time becomes very uncompetitive, I will simply chose to do business with another firm that is more price competitive. The private sector is governed ultimately by it's customers.

Public sector employees, particularly at the Federal level,  force me to pay them by threat of jail time.

Unless of course, you are, say, GM and may have made huge campaign contributions to the right politician. Bailout with taxpayer $. And the effect on it's car prices were nil.

Good point.  I guess you can throw in the major banks as well.  I'm not in favor of government bailouts. 

clacy wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

clacy wrote: Because I think States, Cities, Counties are the place for most governmental regulation.  I say that because if I disagree with my local political policies, I can fairly easily move to the suburb next door.  I can also get far more involved and use my social circle, etc, to help change the law/leadership/etc.

It's the same principle I use with unions.  I'm perfectly fine with private unions.  Public unions, I detest.  I have no or very little recourse with public unions.  If they negotiate rich contracts, I have no alternative but to pay my taxes.

If a private company is unionized, and over time becomes very uncompetitive, I will simply chose to do business with another firm that is more price competitive. The private sector is governed ultimately by it's customers.

Public sector employees, particularly at the Federal level,  force me to pay them by threat of jail time. 

Everyone at every level of government forces you to either 1) pay, or 2) move. It's the same everywhere. Your only hope on having any material effect on a government is to live in a small town or become extremely involved. And lucky. And then you still have to deal with county and state laws, over which you have almost no control.  And this is all true whether or not the employees have unionized. 

Regarding moving, we have 200 countries to choose from... Hardly a monopoly. You can vote with your feet relatively easily relative to the burden of living under a government you hate for the next 40 years.

As you said in your post, the smaller the community/government, the easier it is to influence.  I feel like you validated my point here.

Only very, very small governments carry anything resembling any sort of influencable structure.  But there is no fundamental reason that a city of 50,000 will respond to my vote or advocacy any materially different than a country of 500 Million.  So your argument that cities, states, or counties are better than the federal government seems to be built on some false premises.  If you are advocating for a series of super-small township governments, then we can have that conversation, but it's a difficult one to have, because simply removing the feds won't result in a series of tiny towns.

You seem to favor higher taxes, by centralized/federal governments, but a municipality trying to get teenagers to shape up is "tyranny"? 

I've said several times that I actually advocate for lowering taxes.  I advocate that certain tasks be handled by the feds. 

I used the word "tyranny" to half-sarcastically represent any affront to my free will.  In that context, a central government certainly is "tyrannical," whether it be N Korea's or USA's.  I'd add a land "owner" to that list, but that's a different discussion for a different thread .  But regarding "tyranny," I don't really "feel" oppressed, but I'm trying to be objective about this... rather than just cherry-picking what forms of force are "tyranny" and what are "the rule of law" or whatever the cherry-pickers want to call it.

I would argue that relocating to the suburb next door, or to a different state for that matter is 20x easier than expatriating to avoid taxes and the US Federal reach.

It is easier.  I agree with this.  I still don't like intrusive laws on personal behavior.  And I think on a fundamental philosophical level, if it is wrong for one level of government to do something, there's no logical level at which it should start.

One thing I notice as a tax accountant is how much it SUCKS to have to know how to comply with multi-state regulations and taxes when you run a business.  From my perspective, and a lot of our clients, decentralizing taxes and regulation would make life much more difficult, as so many state and local governments do things FAR more stupidly than the federal government, and it's difficult to efficiently weed those markets out of your system (though we try) .

I also think that closed-system-governments are FAR better at counter-cyclical action-taking (which I believe to be a good thing) during times of economic hardship. 

But this is just my subjective opinion on how to use this ugly monster called "force" to some degree to better our outcomes.  Yeah, it's "easier" to move from one municipality to another to avoid tyranny.  It's also FAR "easier" for an 18-year-old to avoid being forced at gunpoint to go fight an enemy today than it was in 1970.  So perhaps the feds are far less tyrannical than they were back then.

Ad Orientem wrote:Do we really want to start criminalizing bad taste? Personally I don't think it's a good idea. But if we do decide to go down that road, I suggest we start by indicting the entire 1970's.

Actually, everyone was a criminal in the 1970s, fashion wise.

WildAboutHarry wrote:

Ad Orientem wrote:Do we really want to start criminalizing bad taste? Personally I don't think it's a good idea. But if we do decide to go down that road, I suggest we start by indicting the entire 1970's.

Actually, everyone was a criminal in the 1970s, fashion wise.

Personally, I cringe more at the 1980's tastes than the 1970's.

Wow.

If I want to get bitch-slapped with facts: Gumby

If I need a picture to do the work: Desert

I might have to check with Kshartle, but I think that pic violates the non-aggression principal.

Desert wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Personally, I cringe more at the 1980's tastes than the 1970's.

I don't want to do this, but you asked for it:



Please don't make me present more '70's examples.  Why do you make me hurt you?

Caveman-chic

clacy wrote:

Desert wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Personally, I cringe more at the 1980's tastes than the 1970's.

I don't want to do this, but you asked for it:



Please don't make me present more '70's examples.  Why do you make me hurt you?

Caveman-chic

I wonder what the capacitance of those suits is?