Is it George's Turn?

[arisbe]

To win the popular vote -- and lose the election?

This may be the map worth following.

Though it doesn't take into account the Libertarian spoiler effect. Yet.

Comments

Re: Part 2

[arichi.livejournal.com]

I see you had some unethical people in your utility companies. Were their competitors asleep at the switch to point out their competitor's mistake (plus illegal activity)?

I think the problem in your example is that one (good) law isn't being enforced, and this is apparently justification for additional laws. This seems to be the same argument that "conservatives" are making in the gay-marriage-amendment debate - judges are overstepping the bounds of the constitution and permitting legislatures to do the same, at many levels, and so the presumed solution is to add to the constitution, yet another amendment that the judges will "interpret" to mean something other than what it says anyway (i.e., even if you oppose gay marriage, you won't get what you want).


Back to your point: Yes, you can only include people in a contract who agreed to the contract. You and I can't create a contract that requires Frank to pay us money, absent his approval as well.

Can utility companies ruin someone else's credit report for refusal to pay a third party's bill? I'll admit I'm unsure. If they can do it to anyone they choose, this is a huge problem in whichever laws govern credit reports (if any do so). If it is a rule of a credit reporting agency, it's the last time I trust that agency when I find out: how can I be sure the information I get about _anyone_ from them is accurate?

On the other hand, if the person is a guarantor, then they might be contractually obliged to pay, by a contract they agreed to. For example, my sophomore year of college, some friends of mine and I got an apartment off-campus. One way to move in required our choice of a large security deposit or a guarantor. We ultimately paid the large security deposit; had we chosen the guarantor, we would have needed a guarantor (usually parents, in the case of college students) to sign the contract with us, as a guarantor. In the event that we default on our rent, we would lose our security deposit (two months' rent, I believe), if we opted for that, or in the event of a guarantor, that person would be obligated to pay; this is something that they would have agreed to when they signed as a guarantor.

To simplify: if my parents sign as a guarantor that I will pay my end of a contract, and I neglect to do so, then it is valid to collect from them. It is not valid to collect from them if they did not agree to such a contract.

So it had to be explained to them by the government, no, really, you only get to dun your customers, and if you don't stop behaving otherwise, we're going to punish you severely.

You'd think these people would've had lawyers to explain it to them. In the situation I described above - in which the laws governing contracts are sufficient to handle the situation - they probably would've been sued for wrongful harassment (I know that's not the legal term for it - how would you describe trying to enforce a contract on someone who had not agreed to it?).

You said:
So when I hear a big-L-Libertarian complain about regulation without specifying which regulations, I figure they quite literally have no idea what regulations are for or do, and that they are wholly unconcerned with the whole "force and fraud" principle -- they're just using it as a ratiocination for lowering their own taxes.

Right. One of the worst things about people who habitually discuss politics is the problem of speaking on subjects that they know little; they may have heard others speak of it occasionally, and remember the big points. They might have been convinced by someone who knew what he was talking about that government regulations are bad, and then tried to argue the conclusion while missing the steps in between. They're either unconcerned or just ignorant.

Lastly:
Did I answer the question?

Yes, quite eloquently. I still think we're missing each other on a few things, and I would like to continue this conversation. If you have the time to respond, I look forward to reading your response.