timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

No argument intended. It just strikes me how little we've changed as s society in the last 30 years as versus the previous 30 years. Most of the changes between 1985 and 2015 seem rather superficial to me, as opposed to the very dramatic ones that we had in the previous era.

If you are gay or smoke pot the differences seem pretty significant.

I'm not sure of this either. In both cases there are inportant changes, yes, but not as significant as the previous 30. Consider gays for instance: by 1985 there were open gay communities, gay rights parades, gay characters in film, and there was already an argument in society over how to regard homosexuality. None of that even remotely existed in 1955. Smoking pot became almost a norm for youths in the late 1960s; before that it was considered a highly dangerous taboo (see Reefer Madness". By 1985 I would argue that most of our current perceptions regarding marijuana were already well developed.

This post comes across as arguing for the sake of arguing. From 1955 to 1985, gay rights advanced by about an inch compared to the 1985-2014.

If you were arguing the changes between 2008 and 2014, I'd agree with you. During the last 6 years we've undergone a dramatic sea change with regard to gays. They're now legal members of our military. Gay marriage is now legal in many states, and probably soon to be all states. The majority of the public is now OK with it, and that likely won't change. The last 6 years have been phenomenal for gay rights.

But- that was not my question. I was asking about the last 30 years overall versus the 30 years before that, and my opinion is that when we look at this longer scale, the changes between 1955 and 1985 are more significant. Again gay rights as a concept didn't even exist in 1955. The whole subject matter was considered to be taboo. There were no public gay communities or gay activists or gay movie stars (out of the closet that is) or performers or anything of the sort. All of these changes, which would lead to the legal changes later, developed before 1985. The Stonewall protest, which was the most significant event in the history of the gay rights movement, took place in 1969. And what's important about that date was that this protest did not take place in a vacuum; it was a spinoff of the women's protests, the civil rights protests, the anti-war protests, all of which took place at the same time. That is yet another reason why the period between 1955-1985 is much more significant to American history than 1985-2015, IMO.

 

[eoMMan]

Definitely more different in 85 to 15.

Computers, phones, air travel, etc. Aside from computers generally being more powerful, think of the internet and its affect on the world.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Not that this settles it or anything, but 1955-1985 was almost the entirety of the cold war. From about 1990 on, Americans have never had to live under the prospect of nuclear war. If you went back in time to 1985, you'd be stepping into a world in which the USSR was a superpower on par with the United States and which posed a genuine existential threat to the West. Communism was widely viewed as a viable economic system as opposed to a punch line. I think that would be kind of alien to modern 30 year olds, whereas 1985 and 1955 were pretty similar in that dimension.

 

[eoMMan]

Not that this settles it or anything, but 1955-1985 was almost the entirety of the cold war. From about 1990 on, Americans have never had to live under the prospect of nuclear war.

I don't know about that. I think nuclear war could be a lot sneakier nowadays with suitcase bombs and what not. Didn't you see that movie with Ben Affleck as the Jack Ryan Leaf guy or something?

 

[General Tso]

Wasn't around in 55, but I was in high school in 85. Back then the 50's seemed a million miles away - almost like a different planet. Culturally the 50's were radically different. It seemed so plain, vanilla, homespun, innocent. Even the songs and the tv shows were so different and so corny. It seemed almost like people even spoke differently. "Say, Wally..." Who starts a sentence off with "Say"? The culture changed dramatically in the 60's to the point where the 50's were almost unrecognizable - like it was all a dream or something on a black and white film reel.

But I still think all that pales in comparison to the changes between 85 and today. We haven't even begun to fully appreciate what radical transformations the Internet and communications have made on our daily lives. People didn't even have computers in 85 (for the most part). The Mac came out in 84 but it really didn't catch on right away. Windows 1.0 didn't even come until late 85 or 86. There weren't any cell phones. Heck, I remember thinking the answering machine which had just come at a few years earlier was an amazing invention. Everything was done by telephone - land lines. Your worst enemy was the busy signal. It could completely ruin your life if your friend's Mom was a grabber who monopolized the phone. And everyone in town knew who the gabby Moms were, and we resented them.

Everything was in print form. Libraries were the refuge for those with inquisitive minds. Not so much 85, but in the early 80's if you were curious about the score of a sports game and it wasn't the local team, you either had to wait for the AFTERNOON newspaper the next day, or you could do what I did and call the sports desk at the local tv news station. ESPN came around in the early 80's - as did cable tv - and it really revolutionized things. To this day I get very defensive when someone criticizes Chris Berman. The guy was a straight-out hero to me and my friends for creating ESPN.

Overall I think the bigger cultural changes happened between 55 and 85, but the bigger technological changes happened between 85 and 15. One thing's for sure, though. This thread makes me feel old.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

No argument intended. It just strikes me how little we've changed as s society in the last 30 years as versus the previous 30 years. Most of the changes between 1985 and 2015 seem rather superficial to me, as opposed to the very dramatic ones that we had in the previous era.

If you are gay or smoke pot the differences seem pretty significant.

I'm not sure of this either. In both cases there are inportant changes, yes, but not as significant as the previous 30. Consider gays for instance: by 1985 there were open gay communities, gay rights parades, gay characters in film, and there was already an argument in society over how to regard homosexuality. None of that even remotely existed in 1955. Smoking pot became almost a norm for youths in the late 1960s; before that it was considered a highly dangerous taboo (see Reefer Madness". By 1985 I would argue that most of our current perceptions regarding marijuana were already well developed.

This post comes across as arguing for the sake of arguing. From 1955 to 1985, gay rights advanced by about an inch compared to the 1985-2014.

If you were arguing the changes between 2008 and 2014, I'd agree with you. During the last 6 years we've undergone a dramatic sea change with regard to gays. They're now legal members of our military. Gay marriage is now legal in many states, and probably soon to be all states. The majority of the public is now OK with it, and that likely won't change. The last 6 years have been phenomenal for gay rights.

But- that was not my question. I was asking about the last 30 years overall versus the 30 years before that, and my opinion is that when we look at this longer scale, the changes between 1955 and 1985 are more significant. Again gay rights as a concept didn't even exist in 1955. The whole subject matter was considered to be taboo. There were no public gay communities or gay activists or gay movie stars (out of the closet that is) or performers or anything of the sort. All of these changes, which would lead to the legal changes later, developed before 1985. The Stonewall protest, which was the most significant event in the history of the gay rights movement, took place in 1969. And what's important about that date was that this protest did not take place in a vacuum; it was a spinoff of the women's protests, the civil rights protests, the anti-war protests, all of which took place at the same time. That is yet another reason why the period between 1955-1985 is much more significant to American history than 1985-2015, IMO.

Right -- Stonewall happened in 1969 and not much changed until the late 2000s. That's sort of what FGILC and I are saying.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

On the other hand, it's easy for us for pick 1985-2014 because we lived through that period and witnessed those changes first-hand. Almost none of us have any direct experience of life in 1955 America. Like General Tso said, what we know about the 1950s is what we think we know from watching television, which was heavily censored at the time.

 

[General Tso]

Not that this settles it or anything, but 1955-1985 was almost the entirety of the cold war. From about 1990 on, Americans have never had to live under the prospect of nuclear war.

I don't know about that. I think nuclear war could be a lot sneakier nowadays with suitcase bombs and what not. Didn't you see that movie with Ben Affleck as the Jack Ryan Leaf guy or something?

Good point! I remember having nuclear bomb drills when I was in elementary school. As if hiding under your desk would help!I also remember having dreams occasionally about nuclear war. It was a scary, real prospect back then. The irony is that today we feel safer, when in actuality the nuclear threat is probably a little bit higher. Ignorance is bliss!

 

[timschochet]

Wasn't around in 55, but I was in high school in 85. Back then the 50's seemed a million miles away - almost like a different planet. Culturally the 50's were radically different. It seemed so plain, vanilla, homespun, innocent. Even the songs and the tv shows were so different and so corny. It seemed almost like people even spoke differently. "Say, Wally..." Who starts a sentence off with "Say"? The culture changed dramatically in the 60's to the point where the 50's were almost unrecognizable - like it was all a dream or something on a black and white film reel.

But I still think all that pales in comparison to the changes between 85 and today. We haven't even begun to fully appreciate what radical transformations the Internet and communications have made on our daily lives. People didn't even have computers in 85 (for the most part). The Mac came out in 84 but it really didn't catch on right away. Windows 1.0 didn't even come until late 85 or 86. There weren't any cell phones. Heck, I remember thinking the answering machine which had just come at a few years earlier was an amazing invention. Everything was done by telephone - land lines. Your worst enemy was the busy signal. It could completely ruin your life if your friend's Mom was a grabber who monopolized the phone. And everyone in town knew who the gabby Moms were, and we resented them.

Everything was in print form. Libraries were the refuge for those with inquisitive minds. Not so much 85, but in the early 80's if you were curious about the score of a sports game and it wasn't the local team, you either had to wait for the AFTERNOON newspaper the next day, or you could do what I did and call the sports desk at the local tv news station. ESPN came around in the early 80's - as did cable tv - and it really revolutionized things. To this day I get very defensive when someone criticizes Chris Berman. The guy was a straight-out hero to me and my friends for creating ESPN.

Overall I think the bigger cultural changes happened between 55 and 85, but the bigger technological changes happened between 85 and 15. One thing's for sure, though. This thread makes me feel old.

Very good post, and I do think the bolded is absolutely true. It's my own contention that the cultural changes are more significant overall in this case than the technological changes which is why I regard 55-85 as more profoundly significant. But that's a very subjective POV on my part.

 

[timschochet]

Not that this settles it or anything, but 1955-1985 was almost the entirety of the cold war. From about 1990 on, Americans have never had to live under the prospect of nuclear war. If you went back in time to 1985, you'd be stepping into a world in which the USSR was a superpower on par with the United States and which posed a genuine existential threat to the West. Communism was widely viewed as a viable economic system as opposed to a punch line. I think that would be kind of alien to modern 30 year olds, whereas 1985 and 1955 were pretty similar in that dimension.

Not that either you or I lived through most of it, but wouldn't you think that post Vietnam, post Nixon's trip to China, post détente and ESPECIALLY post the coming of Gorbachev and Glasnost, that an American's perception of the Cold War in 1985 would be vastly different than an American's perception in 1955?

 

[RCon]

Today, one can access virtually the entirety of human knowledge within minutes, from a device held in one hand, from virtually anywhere in the country.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Not that this settles it or anything, but 1955-1985 was almost the entirety of the cold war. From about 1990 on, Americans have never had to live under the prospect of nuclear war. If you went back in time to 1985, you'd be stepping into a world in which the USSR was a superpower on par with the United States and which posed a genuine existential threat to the West. Communism was widely viewed as a viable economic system as opposed to a punch line. I think that would be kind of alien to modern 30 year olds, whereas 1985 and 1955 were pretty similar in that dimension.

Not that either you or I lived through most of it, but wouldn't you think that post Vietnam, post Nixon's trip to China, post détente and ESPECIALLY post the coming of Gorbachev and Glasnost, that an American's perception of the Cold War in 1985 would be vastly different than an American's perception in 1955?

Different? Sure. But the difference from 1955 to 1985 is more a difference in degree. 1985 to 2014 is a difference in kind.

 

[timschochet]

Another great point by General Tso- he wrote:

We haven't even begun to fully appreciate what radical transformations the Internet and communications have made on our daily lives

I think this is absolutely true, so much so that perhaps the answer to this question will be much clearer to us in decades to come than it is now. Like Ivan pointed out, it's hard to see things that are happening to you as they're happening.

 

[General Tso]

Fun fact - in 1955 there were veterans of the Civil War that were still alive - from both sides!

 

[timschochet]

Another good point by Rich as well.

You guys are kind of changing my mind on this. I'm still more impressed by the cultural differences between 1955 and 1985- a society in 1955 in which blacks were still segregated and subjected to Jim Crow in the South, where the idea of a woman or black President would be laughable at best, where rock and roll didn't really exist and popular music, films and novels were heavily self-censored, and where "Father Knows Best" and "Leave It to Beaver" were thought to be representative examples of the average American family.

But maybe you're right about the technology, because it's so overwhelming...

 

[urbanhack]

http://mashable.com/2013/09/16/1985-tech/

 

[timschochet]

Can I at least argue that in terms of popular music the changes in the last 30 years are insignificant? I listen to my daughter's listening to today's top 40, and all the singing styles, the pop elements to songs, the melodic "hooks" that makes something a hit- it's all been done before, IMO. There's nothing new. Is Taylor Swift remarkably different in content to Madonna in 1985? Not in my opinion. We already had hip hop by then. We had seemingly every kind of rock that we have now.

But if you go back to 1955, we had almost none of it.

 

[timschochet]

http://mashable.com/2013/09/16/1985-tech/

Great article.

I own a Commodore 64 and my friend had a 128. Another friend had the Amiga when it first came out.

 

[jon_mx]

I think a kid from 85 going back to 55 would have a much easier time to adjust. I think a kid going back from today to 1985 would be completely lost without his smart phone.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Can I at least argue that in terms of popular music the changes in the last 30 years are insignificant? I listen to my daughter's listening to today's top 40, and all the singing styles, the pop elements to songs, the melodic "hooks" that makes something a hit- it's all been done before, IMO. There's nothing new. Is Taylor Swift remarkably different in content to Madonna in 1985? Not in my opinion. We already had hip hop by then. We had seemingly every kind of rock that we have now.

But if you go back to 1955, we had almost none of it.

Agreed wholeheartedly. Today's pop is similar to 1980s pop. NWA and Tone Loc don't exactly sound modern, but the connection is there. By way of contrast, 1950s-era music sounds like it was produced on another planet.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I think a kid from 85 going back to 55 would have a much easier time to adjust. I think a kid going back from today to 1985 would be completely lost without his smart phone.

That's because kids who came of age during the 1980s were tough and resourceful and could be expected to thrive in any environment. Not like the hothouse flowers of today.

 

[jon_mx]

I think a kid from 85 going back to 55 would have a much easier time to adjust. I think a kid going back from today to 1985 would be completely lost without his smart phone.

That's because kids who came of age during the 1980s were tough and resourceful and could be expected to thrive in any environment. Not like the hothouse flowers of today.

damn straight. we walked to school 10 miles, uphill both ways, through 3 feet of snow. I would tell today's kids to get off my yard, but they are too busy playing on their phones.

 

[urbanhack]

The yellow sony walkman that played a cassette tape would be replaced with a Samsung Galaxy where Marty would be watching a football game in real time and then flip over and start talking to someone using Skype.

 

[General Tso]

I think a kid from 85 going back to 55 would have a much easier time to adjust. I think a kid going back from today to 1985 would be completely lost without his smart phone.

That's because kids who came of age during the 1980s were tough and resourceful and could be expected to thrive in any environment. Not like the hothouse flowers of today.

damn straight. we walked to school 10 miles, uphill both ways, through 3 feet of snow. I would tell today's kids to get off my yard, but they are too busy playing on their phones.

No joke - true story... I grew up #6 in a family of 7 in a typical suburb in the 70's. When I was 8 years old my mom forgot to pick me up after Little League practice. I was at a remote, isolated field 2 miles from my house and it was pitch dark. I somehow found my way home and when I walked into the house - my siblings all laughed at me because I was crying, and my mom didn't even know I was gone.

 

[RCon]

Can I at least argue that in terms of popular music the changes in the last 30 years are insignificant? I listen to my daughter's listening to today's top 40, and all the singing styles, the pop elements to songs, the melodic "hooks" that makes something a hit- it's all been done before, IMO. There's nothing new. Is Taylor Swift remarkably different in content to Madonna in 1985? Not in my opinion. We already had hip hop by then. We had seemingly every kind of rock that we have now.

But if you go back to 1955, we had almost none of it.

Agreed wholeheartedly. Today's pop is similar to 1980s pop. NWA and Tone Loc don't exactly sound modern, but the connection is there. By way of contrast, 1950s-era music sounds like it was produced on another planet.

Well, music was more or less perfected during the 80s. No reason to mess with perfection.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

GPS turn by turn directions on a smart phone would blow people's minds in 1985.

 

[Thorn]

GPS turn by turn directions on a smart phone would blow people's minds in 1985.

do today's teenagers even know how to give directions?

 

[General Tso]

Also - and this could be very traumatic for someone going back to 1985 - this was very much the era of the "big bush" - both upstairs and downstairs if you know what I mean. I have many many bad memories...

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Also - and this could be very traumatic for someone going back to 1985 - this was very much the era of the "big bush" - both upstairs and downstairs if you know what I mean. I have many many bad memories...

 

[squistion]

Today, one can access virtually the entirety of human knowledge within minutes, from a device held in one hand, from virtually anywhere in the country.

Grumpy Cat ‏@GrumpyCatsPaw · 3h3 hours ago

Phones get thinner and smarter. People get fatter and more stupid

 

[timschochet]

Also - and this could be very traumatic for someone going back to 1985 - this was very much the era of the "big bush" - both upstairs and downstairs if you know what I mean. I have many many bad memories...

Hmm. I think youre thinking more of the 70s actually.

 

[Stinger Ray]

Also - and this could be very traumatic for someone going back to 1985 - this was very much the era of the "big bush" - both upstairs and downstairs if you know what I mean. I have many many bad memories...

Hmm. I think youre thinking more of the 70s actually.

Big hair is associated with the 80s and not the 70s. And as far as downstairs not many were bald like they are today.

 

[General Tso]

Also - and this could be very traumatic for someone going back to 1985 - this was very much the era of the "big bush" - both upstairs and downstairs if you know what I mean. I have many many bad memories...

Hmm. I think youre thinking more of the 70s actually.

Big hair is associated with the 80s and not the 70s. And as far as downstairs not many were bad like they are today.

Has it gotten bad again? I've been out of the game for a while. That would be an awful development if true.

 

[Slapdash]

Tyler Cowen has an interesting, short book on the subject of technological development over the last 30-40 years. Check out the TedX talk here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_93CXTt2K7c

 

[Stinger Ray]

Also - and this could be very traumatic for someone going back to 1985 - this was very much the era of the "big bush" - both upstairs and downstairs if you know what I mean. I have many many bad memories...

Hmm. I think youre thinking more of the 70s actually.

Big hair is associated with the 80s and not the 70s. And as far as downstairs not many were bad like they are today.

Has it gotten bad again? I've been out of the game for a while. That would be an awful development if true.

Actually that was a typo. It should have been bald and not bad but I have heard the hairy look is coming back. I'm single and can confirm that I've seen more hair lately than in the past so maybe that is coming back. And of those that were they are younger than me. I hope not.

 

[bostonfred]

A little short blonde hair > a single brunette stripe > bald > the rest

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

1985 I would wake to my digital alarm clock. I'd grab a domestic beer out of the fridge, light up a Marlboro, take a dump, turn on (manually - no remote) network T.V. for the news. The news would discuss The Soviets, Iran Contra, Illegal Immigrants, and the Space Shuttle. I'd shower, grab the videotape from last night to return to the video store, and head out the door. I would get into my Datsun, manual shift, no catalytic converter, pop in a mix tape I had made from my albums, head to the video store after a stop at the gas station where I had to be careful to select between leaded and unleaded. While at the video store I might seek out a payphone to check in with my girlfriend or room mate.

I'd pick up my girlfriend and then head out for breakfast. She might come down dressed for aerobics, including wearing some leg warmers. Her hair was massive. We'd stop for brunch, smoking inside. I'd drop her off and head to the library to study. I wanted to get there early because one of the few computers might be available to do some Westlaw research, and I might even get to word process my paper using WordStar and print it out on an inkjet printer, though more likely only the dot matrix one was working. I'd score a bunch of quarters at the cafeteria, or charge up my copy card for the copies of cases I might need from the Reporters. I'd head to the smoking room in the library to study.

After studying I'd pick up a paper to see what bands were playing, and where. I'd try to contact my girlfriend, my brother, and some friends to set up the evening, but likely could only contact a few. Mostly I would leave messages on answering machines, but we all pretty much knew where to go to find each other anyhow.

I'd head back to my apartment. My room mate would be smearing his hair with mousse, getting ready for a big night catching Prince. I would shower, and head on down to score from a buddy before heading to a blues club. No mousse for DW. If it was Saturday Night I would take a few moments to call my picks in to my bookie. Sometimes instead of going out I would host a poker game, we played cards face to face in those days.

I guess most of the differences were superficial. Yes gays died of AIDS in those days, and air travel overseas was much faster on the Concorde, but things were pretty much the same.

I was different. My belly was flat, my hair not gray, and I could dunk all afternoon and fornicate all night.

I do remember MADD was working very hard to lower the legal limit to .12 from .15. They conceded that if they could get that done their mission would be over and there would be no slippery slope.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I do remember MADD was working very hard to lower the legal limit to .12 from .15. They conceded that if they could get that done their mission would be over and there would be no slippery slope.

Great post, but I like this part the best. The 1980s where when my state (Indiana at the time) proposed making seat belts mandatory for our own good. People like my high school-aged me argued that this would inevitably lead to restrictions on fast food and cola consumption because those were unhealthy too, and I was told at the time that that was a stupid argument and I was clearly grasping at straws.

 

[timschochet]

I do remember MADD was working very hard to lower the legal limit to .12 from .15. They conceded that if they could get that done their mission would be over and there would be no slippery slope.

Great post, but I like this part the best. The 1980s where when my state (Indiana at the time) proposed making seat belts mandatory for our own good. People like my high school-aged me argued that this would inevitably lead to restrictions on fast food and cola consumption because those were unhealthy too, and I was told at the time that that was a stupid argument and I was clearly grasping at straws.

Seriously? So as it turns out, you were right. And as it also turns out, who cares? There were people like you in the libertarian movement even then and for the life of me I could never understand it. These days the dominate that that movement. So we're forced to wear seat belts and some cities want to regulate the size of soda cups. So what? Is the dictatorship right around the corner?

 

[timschochet]

As for DW, you post was great as always (what a terrific writing style you have! I mean this with all sincerity, you are quite simply better than many of the columnists who are paid to offer their opinions) but you're right; every change you mentioned was largely superficial. Not sure if you meant that tongue in cheek but I'm being serious here. Your ability in 1985 to do things was different, and compared to now, hampered, but in no way was your freedom restricted. If you were a black American in 1955 living in a Jim Crow state your freedom was seriously limited: different water fountains, restrooms and all public facilities, forced to send your children to schools of lesser quality, forced to wait in stores while any white who walked in was served first, unable to vote, and heaven help you if you didn't display subservience to white people at all times, especially to women. And it wasn't much better in the North.

 

[jon_mx]

As for DW, you post was great as always (what a terrific writing style you have! I mean this with all sincerity, you are quite simply better than many of the columnists who are paid to offer their opinions) but you're right; every change you mentioned was largely superficial. Not sure if you meant that tongue in cheek but I'm being serious here. Your ability in 1985 to do things was different, and compared to now, hampered, but in no way was your freedom restricted. If you were a black American in 1955 living in a Jim Crow state your freedom was seriously limited: different water fountains, restrooms and all public facilities, forced to send your children to schools of lesser quality, forced to wait in stores while any white who walked in was served first, unable to vote, and heaven help you if you didn't display subservience to white people at all times, especially to women. And it wasn't much better in the North.

I bet it did not take 6 months to get a permit to make some interior changes in a commercial builing in 1955 or even 1985. In some ways the small changes seems superficial, but in other ways it is a death by a thousand cuts. At some point we have to say enough is enough and there needs to be a line which government can't cross.

 

[timschochet]

As for DW, you post was great as always (what a terrific writing style you have! I mean this with all sincerity, you are quite simply better than many of the columnists who are paid to offer their opinions) but you're right; every change you mentioned was largely superficial. Not sure if you meant that tongue in cheek but I'm being serious here. Your ability in 1985 to do things was different, and compared to now, hampered, but in no way was your freedom restricted. If you were a black American in 1955 living in a Jim Crow state your freedom was seriously limited: different water fountains, restrooms and all public facilities, forced to send your children to schools of lesser quality, forced to wait in stores while any white who walked in was served first, unable to vote, and heaven help you if you didn't display subservience to white people at all times, especially to women. And it wasn't much better in the North.

I bet it did not take 6 months to get a permit to make some interior changes in a commercial builing in 1955 or even 1985. In some ways the small changes seems superficial, but in other ways it is a death by a thousand cuts. At some point we have to say enough is enough and there needs to be a line which government can't cross.

My complaint was about California and it is certainly harder to do things now than it was 30 years ago. In other states it might be easier. However, I disagree with your premise. My complaint was about the impracticality and inefficiency of red tape, not about its erosion into liberty. One essential difference between you and I is that I rarely see our government as tyrannical. Most of the problems that result from big government stem from bureaucratic incompetence. Which is why I wrote I felt like I was in a Kafka novel and not an Orwellian one. I had this same difference with those of you I felt were overly concerned with the NSA.

 

[jon_mx]

As for DW, you post was great as always (what a terrific writing style you have! I mean this with all sincerity, you are quite simply better than many of the columnists who are paid to offer their opinions) but you're right; every change you mentioned was largely superficial. Not sure if you meant that tongue in cheek but I'm being serious here. Your ability in 1985 to do things was different, and compared to now, hampered, but in no way was your freedom restricted. If you were a black American in 1955 living in a Jim Crow state your freedom was seriously limited: different water fountains, restrooms and all public facilities, forced to send your children to schools of lesser quality, forced to wait in stores while any white who walked in was served first, unable to vote, and heaven help you if you didn't display subservience to white people at all times, especially to women. And it wasn't much better in the North.

I bet it did not take 6 months to get a permit to make some interior changes in a commercial builing in 1955 or even 1985. In some ways the small changes seems superficial, but in other ways it is a death by a thousand cuts. At some point we have to say enough is enough and there needs to be a line which government can't cross.

My complaint was about California and it is certainly harder to do things now than it was 30 years ago. In other states it might be easier.However, I disagree with your premise. My complaint was about the impracticality and inefficiency of red tape, not about its erosion into liberty. One essential difference between you and I is that I rarely see our government as tyrannical. Most of the problems that result from big government stem from bureaucratic incompetence. Which is why I wrote I felt like I was in a Kafka novel and not an Orwellian one. I had this same difference with those of you I felt were overly concerned with the NSA.

I am not sure how you separate red tape with the erosion of liberty. Let's first take the instance of nuclear power. It takes over a decade to get a plant approved and it has effectively eliminated the possiblity of new nuclear plants without actually banning them. It is the same with the building permit process. A big business might be able to afford a lengthy permit process, but it has effectively made it impossible for a small guy to start a business. They haven't banned small business, but they have effectively taken away the liberty of thousands of people with a great idea to start a business. Red tape and inefficency is just as damning to freedom as regulations.

 

[timschochet]

Jon, I don't think you can use a nuclear plant example for s number of reasons. I am as much in favor of new nuclear plants as anyone. But it's never a private venture; it demands a large government investment, so the idea of the govt. not being involved doesn't apply. In addition is it really so unreasonable for the local public to demand a say in where a nuclear plant is to be located? Of course there's going to be more delays for this and there should be.

Your example of small businesses is better and I think you make a great point that the more regulations and restrictions the government imposes, the more it benefits large corporate interests at the expense of the little guy. However I still maintain that you overstate the case. None of this is "damning to freedom" IMO. It's just doesn't work as well as it could.

 

[jon_mx]

Jon, I don't think you can use a nuclear plant example for s number of reasons. I am as much in favor of new nuclear plants as anyone. But it's never a private venture; it demands a large government investment, so the idea of the govt. not being involved doesn't apply. In addition is it really so unreasonable for the local public to demand a say in where a nuclear plant is to be located? Of course there's going to be more delays for this and there should be.

Your example of small businesses is better and I think you make a great point that the more regulations and restrictions the government imposes, the more it benefits large corporate interests at the expense of the little guy. However I still maintain that you overstate the case. None of this is "damning to freedom" IMO. It's just doesn't work as well as it could.

People being able to engage in business without the barriers imposed by governments is probably the most important economic freedom there is. If anything, I understated its importance. It is the most important economic advantage we held over most other countries throughout our history. But we are losing it Perhaps it was abused in many of the environmental abuses in the industrial years, but governments are overplaying it and abusing issues. There is no reason in hell a government needs to review plans for more than a few days, especially when there are inspections along the way to make sure things are done to code. It is utterly ridiculous. Zero excuse for what is going on there

 

[bostonfred]

People being able to engage in business without the barriers imposed by governments is probably the most important economic freedom there is. If anything, I understated its importance. It is the most important economic advantage we held over most other countries throughout our history. But we are losing it Perhaps it was abused in many of the environmental abuses in the industrial years, but governments are overplaying it and abusing issues. There is no reason in hell a government needs to review plans for more than a few days, especially when there are inspections along the way to make sure things are done to code. It is utterly ridiculous. Zero excuse for what is going on there

I agree with this. State and local governments are getting away with murder. I met a guy who bought a huge lot of land in a residential area. The previous owner had tried to get it zoned for four separate lots and it was voted down unanimously. He knew some of the guys who voted it down, so he swooped in, bought the land and they voted unanimously to allow him to split it in four. There are no checks and balances because most of us don't know what's going on and don't vote in local elections. It's absurd.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

As for DW, you post was great as always (what a terrific writing style you have! I mean this with all sincerity, you are quite simply better than many of the columnists who are paid to offer their opinions) but you're right; every change you mentioned was largely superficial. Not sure if you meant that tongue in cheek but I'm being serious here. Your ability in 1985 to do things was different, and compared to now, hampered, but in no way was your freedom restricted. If you were a black American in 1955 living in a Jim Crow state your freedom was seriously limited: different water fountains, restrooms and all public facilities, forced to send your children to schools of lesser quality, forced to wait in stores while any white who walked in was served first, unable to vote, and heaven help you if you didn't display subservience to white people at all times, especially to women. And it wasn't much better in the North.

This time I meant what I wrote.

 

[jon_mx]

People being able to engage in business without the barriers imposed by governments is probably the most important economic freedom there is. If anything, I understated its importance. It is the most important economic advantage we held over most other countries throughout our history. But we are losing it Perhaps it was abused in many of the environmental abuses in the industrial years, but governments are overplaying it and abusing issues. There is no reason in hell a government needs to review plans for more than a few days, especially when there are inspections along the way to make sure things are done to code. It is utterly ridiculous. Zero excuse for what is going on there

I agree with this. State and local governments are getting away with murder. I met a guy who bought a huge lot of land in a residential area. The previous owner had tried to get it zoned for four separate lots and it was voted down unanimously. He knew some of the guys who voted it down, so he swooped in, bought the land and they voted unanimously to allow him to split it in four. There are no checks and balances because most of us don't know what's going on and don't vote in local elections. It's absurd.

And I was going to elaberate about the potential abuse and corruption such a bureaucracy creates, but got pulled away. You gave a fine example of the kind of crap that goes on. There is nothing fair about a system where it is all about who you know or who you paid off. The process should be simple, quick and fair for everyone. It is that type of system that creates the potential for the institutional racism that Tim carries on about, but his examples of institutionalized racism usually aren't.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I do remember MADD was working very hard to lower the legal limit to .12 from .15. They conceded that if they could get that done their mission would be over and there would be no slippery slope.

Great post, but I like this part the best. The 1980s where when my state (Indiana at the time) proposed making seat belts mandatory for our own good. People like my high school-aged me argued that this would inevitably lead to restrictions on fast food and cola consumption because those were unhealthy too, and I was told at the time that that was a stupid argument and I was clearly grasping at straws.

Seriously?So as it turns out, you were right. And as it also turns out, who cares? There were people like you in the libertarian movement even then and for the life of me I could never understand it. These days the dominate that that movement. So we're forced to wear seat belts and some cities want to regulate the size of soda cups. So what? Is the dictatorship right around the corner?

If you genuinely don't understand why libertarians dislike paternalism, you need to read more. That's a pretty basic concept, and you're really not qualified to have an opinion on libertarianism if you're ignorant of such a fundamental concept.

 

[timschochet]

No I get why libertarians don't like paternalism, what I don't get is why THIS particular paternalism gets so much attention and is such a priority. Government is heavily involved in all our lives in endless different ways and it was 30 years ago as well. 60 years ago you couldn't marry someone of a different skin color and women didn't have the right to terminate pregnancies. Police could arrest you without cause and hold you without letting you know what your rights were. You could be inprisoned for being a member of the Communist party, or for reading seditious or obscene material or for merely speaking your mind. All of these are serious offfences to liberty.

We did away with all that, thanks largely to the Warren Court that conservatives tend to despise. We live in a MUCH freer society than we did 60 years ago. And yet people are ranting and raving about seat belts and drinking cup sizes, as if these represented serious limitations on liberty. It's absurd. It's ludicrous. The Founding Fathers most of them libertarians, would laugh at these restrictions but would laugh even harder at the over the top rhetoric that dissenters use to describe them.

So please don't try to tell me how little I've read about this subject. I've read plenty, and I can guarantee you that most of the contemporary thinkers behind modern day libertarianism, the Hayeks and Von Mises and Friedmans- wouldn't have given a #### about mandatory seat belts. Well, Ayn Rand would have, but she was an ornery #####.