PDA

View Full Version : Gov. Paterson of NY warns of "anarchy in the streets" if NYS Gov shuts down




Cowlesy
06-10-2010, 07:17 AM
Bullcrap. People will continue to go about their lives. When the MTA strikes, we all find other ways to get to work, and things continue as normal.

This is one thing that pisses me off about bureaucrats. They think the world will cease to spin if they aren't busy controlling our lives. Shut the government down, and we'll see how things work. I think they're scared to see things are easier to do without their constant meddling.

http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/knickerbocker/paterson_warns_of_anarchy_after_sFGSu3v0lVQJyM3Z2J xExK


ALBANY – Gov. Paterson continued to sound the alarm about a potential government shutdown and attack Republican lawmakers this morning despite an olive branch offered yesterday by Senate Minority Leader Dean Skelos (R-L.I.).

The Democratic executive – in a radio blitz – warned that a sudden shutdown of government would cause “anarchy literally in the streets” and “unimaginable chaos around the state” and blamed Senate Republicans and two rouge Democrats for threatening to bloc vote against emergency spending bills.
“All I’m saying is to the couple Democrats and the 30 Republicans is you don’t want to be responsible for what will come of this,” Paterson said on WCBS 880-AM. “You don’t want this kind of problem.”

specsaregood
06-10-2010, 07:26 AM
Well technically, excepting the least common definition he is correct. Not saying that is a bad thing. :) I think you are right, if the government shutdown, people would find they didnt need it for the most part.....of course the fact that the law abiding people are forbidden guns in NYC could be a problem.



–noun
1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.


Over here in NJ, the gov was threatening to shut it down unless the budget was balanced. The democrats were so scared of the possibility, they are letting the minority party (republicans) draft the budget this year. Some speculate they agreed to this as to "hang the budget" on the republicans necks. I speculate they were more afraid the citizens would discover they were unneeded.

ItsTime
06-10-2010, 07:33 AM
I disagree with you Cowlesy. I have no doubt if the government shuts down the barbaric government workers will cause chaos in the streets.

Regular citizens will go about their lives. But those sucking on the tits of government will act like the parasitic babies they are.

MelissaWV
06-10-2010, 07:41 AM
Bullcrap. People will continue to go about their lives. When the MTA strikes, we all find other ways to get to work, and things continue as normal.

This is one thing that pisses me off about bureaucrats. They think the world will cease to spin if they aren't busy controlling our lives. Shut the government down, and we'll see how things work. I think they're scared to see things are easier to do without their constant meddling.

http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/knickerbocker/paterson_warns_of_anarchy_after_sFGSu3v0lVQJyM3Z2J xExK

The world won't cease spinning... the city will cease being governed :p Oh no! Anarchy! However, as ItsTime points out, this is a bad city for this to happen. There are an awful lot of people who live off of the Government there (workers and welfare alike).

What's funny is that really, the Government is so far behind the times that it's becoming easier and easier to live without them. As you said, when the MTA strikes and you find another way to get to work. Imagine if the post office went on strike or ceased working for a week! What would you do without all that junk mail? A lot of people get their bills online or could call customer service numbers and get their balance and then make their payment somewhere else. Seriously. You can pay like a dollar at most grocery stores and your utility payment is instantly wired in.

mczerone
06-10-2010, 07:42 AM
Not if they sold off ownership of the streets before they shut down.

I'm sorry your govt can't stay solvent with those duties it has abrogated unto itself, Mr. Paterson, maybe you'll liquidate and suffer a financial loss.

Oh wait, that's right, you're just going to make threats until you can extract enough to keep the fungible coffers full for your graft and waste, while holding basic human services hostage from those people you're claiming you serve.


This is typical.

SooperDave
06-10-2010, 07:46 AM
if the government shuts down the barbaric government workers will cause chaos in the streets.

Regular citizens will go about their lives.

awesome quote!

TonySutton
06-10-2010, 08:05 AM
so this is good news :) right?

kahless
06-10-2010, 08:36 AM
I disagree with you Cowlesy. I have no doubt if the government shuts down the barbaric government workers will cause chaos in the streets.

Regular citizens will go about their lives. But those sucking on the tits of government will act like the parasitic babies they are.

The protests would be isolated to a small part of New York's urban cities. Thus only 1% of the state would have to deal with protests and unlikely it would be chaos.

cindy25
06-10-2010, 08:41 AM
no welfare checks , no food stamps, no unemployment checks etc could cause anarchy; these things have to be phased out, not just shut off.

tremendoustie
06-10-2010, 08:43 AM
Bullcrap. People will continue to go about their lives. When the MTA strikes, we all find other ways to get to work, and things continue as normal.

This is one thing that pisses me off about bureaucrats. They think the world will cease to spin if they aren't busy controlling our lives. Shut the government down, and we'll see how things work. I think they're scared to see things are easier to do without their constant meddling.

http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/knickerbocker/paterson_warns_of_anarchy_after_sFGSu3v0lVQJyM3Z2J xExK


Oh no, what would we do without Patterson? He's so much smarter and better than everyone else, we couldn't possibly manage without him. Why, I call his office every morning just to find out how to dress myself!

kahless
06-10-2010, 08:59 AM
no welfare checks , no food stamps, no unemployment checks etc could cause anarchy; these things have to be phased out, not just shut off.

They should pass a measure to temporarily get the checks out for welfare, food stamps and unemployment. So I agree it should be phased out with a private solution especially for those in need but how would it be anarchy? It is not like law enforcement would go away and a state as large as NY you are really only talking about isolated protests.

Fredom101
06-10-2010, 09:05 AM
He's right. If government shuts down, there will be anarchy. Anarchy just means "no ruler". Chaos is by no means the same thing. And living without government bureaucrats trying to control our lives would be more closely described as PARADISE.

Hopefully, the California government shuts down soon too and we have anarchy in the USA.

catdd
06-10-2010, 09:10 AM
I hope it happens so we can all find out once and for all if the anarchist idea of Paradise is practical.

JosephTheLibertarian
06-10-2010, 09:12 AM
no welfare checks , no food stamps, no unemployment checks etc could cause anarchy; these things have to be phased out, not just shut off.

Phased out is just an excuse. Shut it, baby, shut it!

Elwar
06-10-2010, 09:17 AM
Martin: "A vote for Bart is a vote for anarchy!"

Bart: "A vote for Bart is a vote for anarchy!!!"

tremendoustie
06-10-2010, 09:17 AM
He's right. If government shuts down, there will be anarchy. Anarchy just means "no ruler". Chaos is by no means the same thing. And living without government bureaucrats trying to control our lives would be more closely described as PARADISE.

Main Entry: an·ar·chy

... b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder .. ... 2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order
... b : absence of order : disorder (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disorder) <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>

I'm no fan of government as we know it, but I suggest that your understanding of the word "anarchy" is not the common understanding.

In fact, I would prefer if we support the idea of government -- which may mean free choice between protection agencies, and fair arbitration -- but oppose the idea of the central, aggressively violent state.

"Anarchy", today, means chaos. I wouldn't try to rescue that word.



Hopefully, the California government shuts down soon too and we have anarchy in the USA.

I think history shows that when governments shut down not because of the people's principled stand for liberty, but because of bankruptcy or unrest, disorder results.

The state as we know it is the symptom, not the disease. If the state ended tomorrow, but people still believed in using violence to rule over eachother's lives and finances, we'd instantly have lots of baby states (aka gangs) vieing for control.

The people need to take a principled stand for nonagression -- that's the way things will truly change.

tremendoustie
06-10-2010, 09:24 AM
I hope it happens so we can all find out once and for all if the anarchist idea of Paradise is practical.

If the current government at all levels were to instantly end tomorrow, I don't think it would lead to anything close to a Paradise, unless it is accompanied by a significant shift in what people consider to be appropriate ways to interact with their fellow man: Namely, an extention of the normal everyday rules for moral behavior to "political" interactions.

This shift is what we need to work for ... as I say, the current state is the symptom, not the disease.

Of course, if the NY state government shut down for a little while, and people saw that the world didn't stop spinning, that might help accomplish that shift. Also, moving people out of their comfort zone sometimes helps them think clearly, and in new ways.

The question is this: In the absence of the state, how many people will try to recreate the state in their image, and start enforcing their will on their fellow man? This number needs to drop below a critical threshold before we can expect a peaceful, free society.

If we are able to roll back and end the state, in favor of freedom, I think it will prove we've already reached this threshold. After all, the federal government is just about the biggest baddest gang around.

JosephTheLibertarian
06-10-2010, 09:25 AM
If the current government shuts down due to bankrupcy, I don't think it would lead to anything close to a Paradise, unless it is accompanied by a significant shift in what people consider to be appropriate ways to interact with their fellow man.

This shift is what we need to work for ... as I say, the current state is the symptom, not the disease.

ancap is not "paradise" and no ancap ever said it would be.

but it's freedom

fisharmor
06-10-2010, 09:49 AM
It would be just like it was in DC when we were buried under three feet of snow four months ago.
The whole federal government apparatus and most of the supporting contractors shut down completely for the better part of a week for lack of any reliable transport for leviathan's employees.

Yet the world kept spinning. More importantly, social security checks kept getting delivered, draconian EPA regulations kept getting abided by, and bombs kept dropping in Iraq.

If the government did shut down, it would only be long enough for our overlords to get wise to the fact that if they don't get their butts in gear and figure out a budget, we'd eventually all figure out that we need them exactly as much as we need a rectal prolapse.

They won't let it go that long. Primarily because it would take a whole calendar year or more for people to really get it.

kahless
06-10-2010, 10:15 AM
He's right. If government shuts down, there will be anarchy. Anarchy just means "no ruler". Chaos is by no means the same thing. And living without government bureaucrats trying to control our lives would be more closely described as PARADISE.

Hopefully, the California government shuts down soon too and we have anarchy in the USA.

There would NOT be anarchy since the local and county level government will continue to operate. The most that would happen is people would not have to worry about traffic laws such as speed limits on parts of the interstate where local municipalities are unable to provide coverage.

For example the county where I live if the NY state police shut down it would not make much a difference. The local and county police departments could handle the interstates which run though thier area.

If the NY state government closed tomorrow it would have little if any negative impact to the majority of the people in the state that are not employed by them or are fed by them.

tremendoustie
06-10-2010, 11:35 AM
ancap is not "paradise" and no ancap ever said it would be.

but it's freedom

A collapse of the current state wouldn't lead to freedom either, necessarily. Again, look at what we have in somalia.

I support ancap ideas. I'm just saying the thing standing in the way of achieving that kind of society is the views and assumptions of people themselves, and not the state itself.

End the state, but don't change the people, and you'll have another state, or number of states overnight.

Change the people and the state will fade away.

If a state collapse occurs, it could be a great opportunity for freedom -- but it's only that: an opportunity -- and we need to be working to wake people up now, to maximize the chance of stability and freedom if that does occur. A collapse is not in itself, success. One need only look at the many state collapses recorded by history, and consider how many led to a free society.

It is my view that a free society is more likely to occur by the government fading away, than collapsing due to turmoil or bankruptcy. It needs to be based on an intentional decision for freedom, by the populace.

tremendoustie
06-10-2010, 11:42 AM
There would NOT be anarchy since the local and county level government will continue to operate. The most that would happen is people would not have to worry about traffic laws such as speed limits on parts of the interstate where local municipalities are unable to provide coverage.

For example the county where I live if the NY state police shut down it would not make much a difference. The local and county police departments could handle the interstates which run though thier area.

If the NY state government closed tomorrow it would have little if any negative impact to the majority of the people in the state that are not employed by them or are fed by them.

That's true ... we really have lots of overlapping government. As an intermediate step, it'd be great if we could just rely on local municipalities ... most of what the states and feds do is at best pointless and wasteful, and at worst, highly damaging.

Fredom101
06-10-2010, 02:00 PM
Main Entry: an·ar·chy

... b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder .. ... 2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order
... b : absence of order : disorder (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disorder) <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>

I'm no fan of government as we know it, but I suggest that your understanding of the word "anarchy" is not the common understanding.

I was referring to the original meaning of the word, which comes from Greek: Without ruler. The meaning of the word "privatization" has also been changed, so has "libertarianism", but I'm talking about the REAL meaning.


In fact, I would prefer if we support the idea of government -- which may mean free choice between protection agencies, and fair arbitration -- but oppose the idea of the central, aggressively violent state.

"Anarchy", today, means chaos. I wouldn't try to rescue that word.

Government never means those things. Government gets its power from the threat of violence, it is not about free choice. What you described is something else, not government.

"Anarchy" is not chaos, despite the fact that many people use the word this way. If you want to learn more about this whole topic, I suggest you check out the audiobook called "Everyday Anarchy" by Stefan Molyneux www.freedomainradio.com. He talks about rescuing the word at the beginning.




I think history shows that when governments shut down not because of the people's principled stand for liberty, but because of bankruptcy or unrest, disorder results.

Agreed, I don't want riots, but I still want the idiotic government to collapse.


The state as we know it is the symptom, not the disease. If the state ended tomorrow, but people still believed in using violence to rule over eachother's lives and finances, we'd instantly have lots of baby states (aka gangs) vieing for control.

Possibly, but I'll take my chances. It would take a while to get these "baby states" up and running, in the mean time this gives us some more time to educate and operate freely in the agorist free market.


The people need to take a principled stand for nonagression -- that's the way things will truly change.

True, but if the state spends itself into a collapse, I will not be shedding any tears!

Fredom101
06-10-2010, 02:09 PM
A collapse of the current state wouldn't lead to freedom either, necessarily. Again, look at what we have in somalia.

I support ancap ideas. I'm just saying the thing standing in the way of achieving that kind of society is the views and assumptions of people themselves, and not the state itself.

End the state, but don't change the people, and you'll have another state, or number of states overnight.

Change the people and the state will fade away.

If a state collapse occurs, it could be a great opportunity for freedom -- but it's only that: an opportunity -- and we need to be working to wake people up now, to maximize the chance of stability and freedom if that does occur. A collapse is not in itself, success. One need only look at the many state collapses recorded by history, and consider how many led to a free society.

It is my view that a free society is more likely to occur by the government fading away, than collapsing due to turmoil or bankruptcy. It needs to be based on an intentional decision for freedom, by the populace.

The somalia argument is just plain silly.
That's a complete apples/oranges comparison.

The mentality among Somalians is tribal, mystic, and used to constantly being at war. They do not have the American spirit of entrepreneuralism by a long shot.

Having said that, taking away their government has lead to far more prosperity in the country then had been seen previously. Lots of things got better when the government was gone. You have to have a starting point to compare to. Saying because they haven't had government for a few years and it's not a ancap paradise proving that a voluntary society could never work is just a straw man.

Let's just drop the stupid somalia thing because it is not an argument against voluntaryism or Anarcho capitalism.

georgiaboy
06-10-2010, 02:12 PM
maybe the article is confusing 'anarchy' with 'celebration' in the streets?

libertybrewcity
06-10-2010, 02:12 PM
i can't see the government not shutting down eventually. the state will eventually be taxed to the brim and revolt especially with the mix of local, state, and federal taxes that will likely rise.

libertybrewcity
06-10-2010, 02:14 PM
The somalia argument is just plain silly.
That's a complete apples/oranges comparison.

The mentality among Somalians is tribal, mystic, and used to constantly being at war. They do not have the American spirit of entrepreneuralism by a long shot.

Having said that, taking away their government has lead to far more prosperity in the country then had been seen previously. Lots of things got better when the government was gone. You have to have a starting point to compare to. Saying because they haven't had government for a few years and it's not a ancap paradise proving that a voluntary society could never work is just a straw man.

Let's just drop the stupid somalia thing because it is not an argument against voluntaryism or Anarcho capitalism.

so does a nation or group have to have entrepreneurialism and American spirit in order for Austrian economics or anarcho capitalism to work? What conditions must be in place for it to work?

JosephTheLibertarian
06-10-2010, 02:24 PM
A collapse of the current state wouldn't lead to freedom either, necessarily. Again, look at what we have in somalia.

Somalia performs better than its neighbors. And we are a more civilized people.

Fredom101
06-10-2010, 02:26 PM
so does a nation or group have to have entrepreneurialism and American spirit in order for Austrian economics or anarcho capitalism to work? What conditions must be in place for it to work?

Absolutely. The people are what create government and keep government growing. People must break the shackles of their minds before we have true freedom.

tremendoustie
06-10-2010, 03:51 PM
I was referring to the original meaning of the word, which comes from Greek: Without ruler. The meaning of the word "privatization" has also been changed, so has "libertarianism", but I'm talking about the REAL meaning.

The purpose of language is to communicate. The "real" meaning is the meaning most people understand when you use the word.

If I say your writing is "artificial" I'm not paying you a complement -- despite the fact that that's the way the word was originally used -- and if I say you're "nice", I'm not insulting you.

We should select words to communicate effectively, and not focus on the history or root of those words.



Government never means those things. Government gets its power from the threat of violence, it is not about free choice. What you described is something else, not government.


Sure, that's the way government as we know it works. Why can we not suggest another form of government? A central state is not the only way society can be governed. What of "self government", by which we mean that one controls one's own actions? What of the "governing" influence exerted by social opinion on behavior?

Main Entry: gov·ern
...
2 a archaic : manipulate (http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/manipulate) b : to control the speed of (as a machine) especially by automatic means
3 a : to control, direct, or strongly influence the actions and conduct of b : to exert a determining or guiding influence in or over <income must govern expenditure> c : to hold in check : restrain (http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/restrain)
...
5 : to serve as a precedent or deciding principle for <customs that govern human decisions>

For something to be governed just means it is orderly, and controlled. It does not imply a central state. Government of society certainly could be accomplished by protection agencies, and fair arbiters.

THIS is the battle for language we should be fighting. You don't claim words for yourself that everyone rejects, you claim the ones that everyone accepts.

I guarantee you will have a far easier time convincing people that society may be governed without the use of aggressive violence, than that anarchy is something to be desired.

Which do you think sounds better to a brainwashed, mainstream individual, to encourage them to listen to your ideas and consider them honestly?

Statement 1: I support anarchy, and want no government at all.
Statement 2: I believe government of society can be accomplished without the use of aggressive violence.

It's not even close.



"Anarchy" is not chaos, despite the fact that many people use the word this way.


Anarchy MEANS chaos, to a great many people. That's why it's a poor choice to use this word if you're trying to convince them that a free society is not chaotic.



If you want to learn more about this whole topic, I suggest you check out the audiobook called "Everyday Anarchy" by Stefan Molyneux www.freedomainradio.com (http://www.freedomainradio.com). He talks about rescuing the word at the beginning.


I don't agree with Stefan on every issue.



Agreed, I don't want riots, but I still want the idiotic government to collapse.


I'm not going to shed a tear for it either, but don't think that would mean freedom. The collapse of government is not the salvation of liberty. Liberty will only come when we change enough minds -- this is where we must focus.



Possibly, but I'll take my chances. It would take a while to get these "baby states" up and running, in the mean time this gives us some more time to educate and operate freely in the agorist free market.


"Baby states" are often referred to as "gangs", and they can be set up extremely quickly. If you're living in a population full of people who are quite happy to take other people's stuff by force ... good luck.



True, but if the state spends itself into a collapse, I will not be shedding any tears!

Nor I -- but again, we shouldn't mistake an economic collapse of the current government as an evolution to a free society. It's not.

osan
06-10-2010, 03:51 PM
...of course the fact that the law abiding people are forbidden guns in NYC could be a problem.

They are not banned, they are heavily restricted and keeping them is a major PITA, which I know from first hand experience.


Over here in NJ, the gov was threatening to shut it down unless the budget was balanced. The democrats were so scared of the possibility, they are letting the minority party (republicans) draft the budget this year. Some speculate they agreed to this as to "hang the budget" on the republicans necks. I speculate they were more afraid the citizens would discover they were unneeded.

You talking about the current gov? I cannot believe that a guy like that was elected to office in a shithole like NJ, but I am glad... so far. Wish someone like that had been in when I lived there.

PreDeadMan
06-10-2010, 03:59 PM
HOLY FUCKING SHIT WHEN IS THE GOVERNMENT SHUTTING DOWN!?? can someone break out the beer and the soda!? Once people see that government is just a monopoly of violence and they don't need it the better it is for liberty :)

HOLLYWOOD
06-10-2010, 03:59 PM
Gov. Paterson of NY warns of "anarchy in the streets" if NYS Gov shuts down This is the same Horseshit Paulson and Bernake pulled... Paterson wants a major BAILOUT from Uncle Sugar and the Socialists.

You don't think state and local governments can't play the same game? Checkout what the Bankrupt California State Comptroller, Johnny Chiang, told the government UNIONS, YESTERDAY, to do... ask and lobby Washington DC and the collectivists for a BAILOUT too!

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/06/10/2811946/controller-suggests-feds-help.html#mi_rss=State%20Politics

Controller suggests Feds help fight off minimum wage for State Workers


By Jon Ortiz
jortiz@sacbee.com
Published: Thursday, Jun. 10, 2010 - 12:00 am | Page 1A
Last Modified: Thursday, Jun. 10, 2010 - 9:56 am

Hoping to head off an order to drastically reduce state worker pay if budget talks stall, Controller John Chiang's (http://topics.sacbee.com/Controller+John+Chiang/) office sent a message to employee unions (http://topics.sacbee.com/employee+unions/) this week suggesting they reach out to a friend – U.S. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis. (http://topics.sacbee.com/Hilda+Solis/)
Although the three-page plain-paper memo acquired by The Bee is unsigned, the controller's office confirmed that Chiang (http://topics.sacbee.com/Chiang/) Chief of Staff Collin Wong-Martinusen wrote the document circulated to labor leaders on Monday.
"Seek Solis' immediate intervention on an unprecedented pay practice that, if allowed to proceed in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) could become the new norm for all state and municipal governments that have late budgets or face fiscal distress," Wong-Martinusen wrote.
Aaron McLear, (http://topics.sacbee.com/Aaron+McLear/) spokesman for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, blasted the idea.
"It's totally inappropriate for the controller to seek federal cover to get around implementing the law," McLear said Wednesday afternoon.
California's (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) Supreme Court in 2003 said state worker pay may be temporarily withheld to the federal minimum – currently $7.25 per hour – when lawmakers fail to pass a budget that appropriates money for payroll. Once a budget is passed, the withheld pay is issued.

A minimum wage order would hit roughly 241,000 state workers and another 73,000 California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) State University employees, the controller estimates.
Schwarzenegger tried to invoke the 2003 decision two years ago when budget talks dragged past the June 30 fiscal year-end. The administration told Chiang (http://topics.sacbee.com/Chiang/) to reduce paychecks to the then-federal minimum of $6.25 per hour until the Legislature (http://topics.sacbee.com/Legislature/) and the governor agreed on a deal.
Chiang (http://topics.sacbee.com/Chiang/) refused, citing concerns that complying would violate labor law. (http://topics.sacbee.com/labor+law/) Restoring pay also would be an enormous challenge for the controller's Vietnam-era payroll system. Controller payroll specialists estimated it could take up to six months to issue all the back pay withheld once a budget is signed. That would expose the state to another round of labor lawsuits.
While Schwarzenegger says the wage reduction is a matter of law, not choice, union officials believe the minimum wage talk is designed to press his political opponents to make budget concessions. The governor has said he won't raise taxes to deal with the state's $19 billion budget gap.
"Maybe the governor thinks this will put pressure on the Legislature (http://topics.sacbee.com/Legislature/) to give in to his proposals," said California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) School Employees Association lobbyist Dave Low, (http://topics.sacbee.com/Dave+Low/) noting that withholding employee pay doesn't save the state money – and may put it in legal peril.

Schwarzenegger's Department of Personnel Administration (http://topics.sacbee.com/Department+of+Personnel+Administration/) last year sued to force Chiang (http://topics.sacbee.com/Chiang/) to comply and won. Chiang (http://topics.sacbee.com/Chiang/) appealed the decision, even though the budget crisis (http://topics.sacbee.com/budget+crisis/) was over.
Oral arguments in the case are set for June 21 in Sacramento's (http://topics.sacbee.com/Sacramento/) 3rd District Court (http://topics.sacbee.com/District+Court/) of Appeal, nine days before the end of the current fiscal year. After that, Schwarzenegger can opt to invoke the minimum wage law.
The timing of the court hearing suggests it could quickly decide the matter to have an impact on this year's budget cycle, Wong-Martinusen wrote.
"Given the 3rd DCA's (http://topics.sacbee.com/3rd+DCA/) right-leaning composition and its past history of adverse rulings relating to labor interests, we should prepare for a ruling which affirms the trial court's decision," the memo says. "If this occurs, the Controller may be ordered to pay minimum wage as early as the July payroll, which is scheduled to be paid on August 1st." Chiang (http://topics.sacbee.com/Chiang/) spokesman Jacob Roper (http://topics.sacbee.com/Jacob+Roper/) said the controller still believes in the legal merit of the appeal and that the memo was simply acknowledging a worst-case scenario. "This is about identifying risk," Roper said. "It's not that we're expecting an adverse court ruling."


With a threat of state worker minimum wage looming, Wong-Martinusen suggested reaching out to Solis, whose Labor Department (http://topics.sacbee.com/Labor+Department/) enforces federal labor law.
"When she was still a member of Congress, (http://topics.sacbee.com/Congress/) Secretary Solis joined Controller Chiang (http://topics.sacbee.com/Controller+Chiang/) in publicly opposing the Governor's minimum wage order," he wrote.
Labor Department (http://topics.sacbee.com/Labor+Department/) spokesman Joseph De Wolk (http://topics.sacbee.com/Joseph+De+Wolk/) declined to comment on the legality of reducing state worker pay because the matter is in the courts.
The minimum-wage issue is on the agenda for today's meeting of the Labor Coalition, (http://topics.sacbee.com/Labor+Coalition/) which includes legislative and political representatives from public employee unions. (http://topics.sacbee.com/employee+unions/)
Wong-Martinusen will join the group to lay out the issues, the controller's office said.
The meeting and the minimum wage memo aren't out of the ordinary, Roper said, noting that the controller's office recently met with administration officials and shared the same information.
"This shows that (Chiang (http://topics.sacbee.com/Chiang/)) is working with stakeholders who would be affected by the governor's politically driven wage order," Roper said.

tremendoustie
06-10-2010, 04:03 PM
The somalia argument is just plain silly.
That's a complete apples/oranges comparison.

The mentality among Somalians is tribal, mystic, and used to constantly being at war. They do not have the American spirit of entrepreneuralism by a long shot.

But it is a valid argument against the idea that a state collapse, regardless of the mentality of the populace, leads to freedom -- as you recognize.

Undoubtedly the mentality of Americans is more pro-freedom, and may have at least marginally better results. But, I think the current mentality obviously still leaves much to be desired.

The demons of political ambition, entitlement, tolerance of aggressive violence, the desire to rule other people's lives, etc, don't disappear with the collapse of the state -- we still have to defeat them.



Having said that, taking away their government has lead to far more prosperity in the country then had been seen previously. Lots of things got better when the government was gone. You have to have a starting point to compare to.

I'm sure some things can improve. Other things get worse -- the violence of a number of baby states is often much less predictable than the violence of a central state, for example.

I would be reluctant to use Somalia as an example of a society that has done what you propose. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your proposal is that people take a stand against aggressive violence in all its forms, which somalians have demonstrably failed to do thus far. Your proposal is not just to end the current state and hope everything turns out ok.

Gangs are not better than states. They're really both the same thing, on different scales.



Saying because they haven't had government for a few years and it's not a ancap paradise proving that a voluntary society could never work is just a straw man.


I'm a voluntaryist -- why would I argue that a voluntary society wouldn't work? I'm just pointing out that the main barrier to freedom is the mentality of the people themselves, not the particular government they happened to have erected to fulfill those ambitions.



Let's just drop the stupid somalia thing because it is not an argument against voluntaryism or Anarcho capitalism.

I'm not using it as such. I'm just trying to make the point that our enemy is the mentality that endorses aggressive violence. This is the root we must strike. The state, however odious, is a symptom -- a branch. If the root's still there, it will sprout back.

MelissaWV
06-10-2010, 04:38 PM
But will there be dancin' in the streets?

PreDeadMan
06-10-2010, 08:03 PM
there should be a movement of republicans and democrats of all stripes that are really closet anarchists looking to get in power of all sorts and when they get in they can all worked together to abolish government programs and eventually government itself then when everything is gone they can just leave office and say to themselves yess! a job well done more freedom! :)

kahless
06-10-2010, 09:47 PM
there should be a movement of republicans and democrats of all stripes that are really closet anarchists looking to get in power of all sorts and when they get in they can all worked together to abolish government programs and eventually government itself then when everything is gone they can just leave office and say to themselves yess! a job well done more freedom! :)

Trying to sell abolishing or eliminating various departments is a hard sell on it's own. Without an economic collapse or state bankruptcy the only way you can sell such a plan as I see it is to hype a transitional private alternative that will replace it.