On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 15:23:19 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Travis Pahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:29:09 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Travis Pahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in part: > >> > >> >> >Too bad it still is being 'phased out'. NYC despite any claims that > >> >> >it is being phased out is still a rent control city. > >> > >> >> No, actually the proportion of rental units subject to rent control > (the > >changing a proper noun is quite a bit different than changing the > >definition of a noun. In other words changing 6th ave to avenue of > >Americas really does not change anything. Annoying sure, but not > >really that important it is just a name. But 'rent controlled' is not > >just a name. It means something. > > Then how does one know whether you refer to rent control specifically, or > to all rent regulation in NY, including stabilization?
I use words as they are intended to mean. If I recognize that someone is confused by my accurate use of words I clarify. > Just because you > use words in a way that invites confusion (such as with your lack of > capitalization where needed) is no reason to think your vagueness is an > advantage. Other than that one time which I clarified your problems with my capitalization was your problem not mine. When I say things such as 'parties like the republicans' it is obvious that I am refering to the Republicans with a capital R regardless of whether I capitalize of not. > > By changing its name you do not > >change what it still is. > > The Pahl family probably includes several members, and if you want to be > specific you'd better use their first names too. Granted, giving you first > names doesn't change the fact that you're in the Pahl family, but there's > still a need to refer to you specifically when the context demands it. And there is nothing that I see relevant to clarify whether I mean rent control or rent stablized in our previous cnversation. They are both forms of rent control and I have made clear I am in favor of getting rid of government control of rent. If you are not able to determine from the context that my opposition to government control of rent would extend to what you call rent stabalized apartments without me specifically saying it, then there is little point in bothering to explain anything to you because I would have to explain in so much detail o avoid other easily understood things that it would not be worth my time. > > Other examples are abundant. The department > >of defense is the first that comes to mind. Orwell has written quite > >a bit on this 'doublespeak'. > > When the Depts. of War and of the Navy were replaced by a new dept., it > needed a name. Would you prefer "Department of Military Affairs", perhaps? Since its primary duty has been war no defense, i prefer a name that reflects war not defense. > Until fairly recently cabinet departments had just 1 capitalized word in > their names. (I think they were all like that at the time Defense got its > name; HEW came a little later and I think Post Office had already been > subsumed.) The Army and the Navy wanted equal treatment, so calling the > merged dept. War (understood as Army's) would've been a slight to the Navy. So rather than think up another name like military or just slight the navy a little they use a misleading name? I think more likely it had nothing to do with slighting the navy, nor did it have to do with keeping to one word names. It had to do with public perceptions and an attempt to engineer them. > > I prefer not to let the government > >define words for me. > > "Control" is the word used in the legislation we now call "rent control", > and "stabilization" the word used in the legislation now called "rent > stabilization". Government made them up and had to call them something. > Doesn't it make sense to call them by the names they were created as? If a > company puts out a product under a certain name, doesn't it make the most > sense to refer to it by that name, if it's their product that you mean? Rent and control are two words with meaning before the government started using them. > >We are > >discussing whether rent control is better elliminated all at once or > >incrementally as the subject line dictates. You then throw in that > >they get tax breaks as if to suggest that someone makes the rent > >control okay. If you want to talk about tax breaks in terms of > >incrementalism, fine. I am suggesting it is better done in big > >steps. Elliminate the whole income tax, don't try to reduce it bit by > >bit or it will never get smaller. > > It's gotten smaller many times, and the trend has been downward for > decades. Only the Social Security tax has been increasing, masking the > reductions in the income tax. Spending has increased despite small ups and downs in tax levels. And social security is an income tax as well. Again you are using governemnt classifications to mask the true nature of things. > >> How convenient of you to pull evidence from your crystal ball. > > >You are doing the same by argueing that somehow this renaming of rent > >stabilazation method will someday lead to a free housing market in > >NYC. > > There IS a free rental market in NYC, existing alongside the regulated one. > The free market keeps getting bigger and the regulated one smaller. > That's not future, that's recent past, thru now. There is not multpile markets for one commodity. The housing market in NYC is controlled by the government. Not all rents are controlled but many are and that makes the market NOT FREE. (unless you are using some new definition of Free givven to you by city council) I know what the past has given us, but it does not mean that the trend will continue. You beleive it will. I beleive it will not. Meanwhile other cities that got rid of it without these stupid plans and have enjopyed free housing markets for deccades now. Why you refuse to beleive that it could have been true in NYC had they not kept fighting for what was completely right rather than accepting a stupid small step is beyond me. > >> >If a state as tax happy as Massachusettes could vote 45% in favor of > >> >repealing the state income tax, then surely the country as a whole > >> >would be above 50% in repealing the federal income tax. > > >> All I know is, they're above 60% in wanting state or federally supplied > >> health insurance even when they're asked if they'd be willing to pay for > it > >> via increased taxes on themselves. > > >That may be true. That is why it is important to put politicians in > >office that do not ask such questions > > What you're asking for is impossible where there's even a vestige of > democracy. Why the hell would voters elect politicians FOR THE REASON THAT > they'll ignore the voters' wishes on most major issues of policy? I mean, > we know voters vote for all sorts of reasons, but I can't conceive of a > plurality getting together to deliberately elect someone to ignore them > from then on!! Look, voters as you pointed out want socialized health care. They also as I pointed out want less taxes. They will elect a candidate that gives them one or the other. You propse that the best way to reduce government is to vote for ones that promise the things that libertarians oppose and then hope to change them. I propose we strive to elect people that will support things libertarians support. It is not just a matter of having the voters vote either for or against what they beleive. They beleive a variety of opposing things often times. I am simply suggesting that Republicans are not offering the correct questions most of the time by offering small steps in the direction of liberty and conceeding large steps opposing liberty. Libertarians are simply proposing big steps in the direction of liberty and these big steps are often the same steps that large amounts of people support (such as ellimination of the income tax). You suggest that people will not vote for candidates that ignore voters wishes. Wella majority of voters wish there was no income tax yet nearly all politicians elected vote against that wish. It is possible. I am merely suggesting we push the politicians that are looking for big steps instead of incremental steps that do not work. > > and instead ask the question of > >whether we should elliminate the income tax, or elliminate other very > >unpopular government programs. > > Then why should they even ask THOSE questions? If they want to ignore > their constituency on SOME issues, why not on ALL issues? by asking those questions, they are building a constituency. > >> Actually, according to what I took from Jeff Friedman at the Oct. Junto, > >> the key is making jumps that are small enough that no potential > opposition > >> notices. > > >That would work if there were not other jumps being made in the other > >direction (such as your government supplied health insurance > >suggestion). That is not the case however. > > It works regardless of whether there are ALSO such jumps in the opposite > direction. The fact that the jumps in the opposite direction occur doesn't > mean that the jumps in your direction don't. Would you rather that ALL the > jumps be in the opposite direction? Even if there are going to be 100 > jumps away from me, I'd rather there be 1 jump toward me than none at all. The problem is that the jumps that you and Republicans seek and occasionally win result in less progress being made at a later date. A good analogy is a person sick in the hospital. They can wait and gain strength and eventually walk out of the hospital healthy or they can take a few steps torwards the door now and fall down dead. These small jumps you are so proud of is equivalent to trying to walk to the door and collapsing. NYC rent control is a perfect example. Rather than taking that step torwards the door (rent stabilization plan), they should have demanded complete ellimination (resting a day or two) like other cities and having a free market for the last few decades (walking out the hospital door healthy). > >You do not know how to come out in favor of the handicapped and > >against federal spending of education at the same time? > > I know how to do that, but I also know that I have no REASON to tie those > issues together in the public mind -- in fact, that doing so is very bad > sales technique! Well given the alternative (Bushs 60% INCREASE in 3 years for the fed dept of ed) I would say it is better than your sales technique. Travis _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
