It’s How They Succeed

That same HLM quotation is equally pertinent to insurance salesmen, purveyors of quack medicine and similar predators on the innocent and vulnerable.

A little off topic. Slow day, started reading Mencken quotations, came across this one;

"Most people want security in this world, not liberty."

He's right of course. And it occurs to me that what I mean by liberty is really security from those who would exploit me, including those in government.

Excellent quote. If you haven't read Dave Barry's recap of 09, you should. He provides many examples of this, like appointing someone incapable of correctly paying his taxes to run the IRS and the lunacy of voting for a stimulus bill that without reading it or complaining about executive bonuses at companies that received bailout money.

Imo, these are all great empirical examples demonstrating lack of educational quality.

One can negatively critique NY polictics, after all we are talking about polictics. But New York's rough environment (the people) is due to the fact that people don't plant roots in New York. New York gets people from all over the country looking for high paying jobs for short stints of time. People come to New York, make money, and then leave to plant roots elsewhere. In an environment like this, where people just use and abuse NYC, how can anything beautiful come about? NYC would be a friendlier place if people valued it more and gave back to the communities that they abuse. I guess this is the nature of the beast.

As for the governor, why shouldn't he have a security detail that resembles that of the Mayor of NYC. After all, according to the Constitution (10th Ammendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."), the Governor position should be the most powerful position. I digress to reality...

What? The reason people leave is because the city uses and abuses anyone who is productive. It lavishes the most lush welfare benefits in the country on the laziest taxes the hell out of anyone who works. The problem isn't that that hard working people "abuse" the city by working long hours. The problem is that the city abuses them for doing so.

There are plenty of people who plant very sturdy roots in NYC. They're all in the ghettos. Very nice community there where they give back as much gunfire as they get.

Firstly, violent crime is down dramatically in NYC. Secondly, people who work in NYC on average net so much more than in any other region in the US exluding maybe Boston; obviously it pays to work in NYC. Third, I believe in free markets to a certain extent. The major limitation to free markets coupled with no welfare system is the certainty that people will "Corner the Market". I am for liberties, but an unchecked society is no society at all. The point being that social welfare programs should exist because they ostensibly create some sort of equality.

Ahh sir, but you see this is the entire eternal argument between those loonies on the left and the conservatives:

"I am for liberties, but an unchecked society is no society at all."

That eternal argument is simply, who does the checking? Do I check myself as conservatism believes? Or, do you and your buddies check me because you don't trust me to check myself?

And, in Leftardia, who checks the checkers?

Power for the sake of power does not exist in Leftardia, so there is no need to check the checkers.

"Equality" is indeed desirable, if it refers to the equal chance for everyone to do his best and make the best life for himself and his family.

However, when gov't interferes with the market in order to achieve a socialist utopia of equality of OUTCOMES, that only results in more suffering and misery, usually for the very poor and unfortunate people that the gov't was purporting to help. (See, eg. minimum wage, labor law generally, protectionism...)

I understand the theories very well, except that I don't agree that the outcomes result in misery for the poor. I don't agree with socialist government, however, there must be a balance between free markets and government oversight. A system of checks and balances must be revered. Otherwise, animal spirits will conquer society and ultimately result in miseries for all.

Either way, we are off topic and should focus on the issue originally put forth. In a free market the Governor should be allowed to get as many guards as he sees fit. But then again one might argue that his protection"ism" may have negative ramifications such as creating an impenetrable shield.

May I ask what a governor's security force and a free market have to do with one another? Since the security guards for the governor are paid out of taxpayers' pockets, it seems to me to have nothing to do with free markets, but is instead all about state budgets.

IT used to pay to begin your career in NYC. I don' think that's as true anymore, but I'm too far removed from the beginning of my career to know for sure. People who work in NYC pay more to work there than in any other city in the United States. Section 8 housing is bigger than an apartment you can rent on a six figure income after taxes.

You enjoy your equality, but not on my dime. I left NYC because it took half my income and so have many other people. NY State is depopulating along with New York City. Good luck finding someone to soak in the name of all that Social Equality.

Not to defend anything this awful state government does, but does anyone know how Paterson's security detail compares to prior NY governors or governors of similar states? The raw number sounds high but maybe it's justifiable?

according to this article http://gothamist.com/2009/12/28/patersons_secur... Patterson's security detail is larger than it was under Spitzer, but smaller than under Pataki

They are parasites. The progressive states of CA, NY and NJ are demonstrating what happens when the parasite grows larger than the host: death. Too bad I live in NJ and work in NY. curses.

Know why people in NYC always appear angry?

The light at the end of the tunnel is New Jersey.

True.

On a serious note, New Yorkers are warm, social people. It’s a great town. They(we) just like to get from A to B without any BS.

Most of the people aren't the problem. I lived in NYC for a long time. My perspective is that it's fine if you don't have to live and pay taxes there. When you have to do those two things, the bitterness just keeps growing. The politics manages to drive me crazy all the way in the Nutmeg state even though I no longer have any business relationships with the city save accountants and lawyers.

My theory is that areas with highly desirable geography, dense urban areas with lots of opportunity or natural resources will tend to be havens of the parasite state. People are just more willing to accept the abuse in exchange for the environment and opportunity.

Look at southern California! I’m tempted to move there just because of the weather (and my industry is there too). But, man, the parasites run the place in CA.

I lived in Vegas and LA for most life. You couldn't pay me enough to go back. Taxes, housing prices, taxes, hippies, taxes...they take too much man.

Justin P --

Virginia City man! (or Carson if you require commerce).

Don't move to Connecticut. It's joining the suicide pact.

Schiff, whom I like, has a shot there. I hope to hell Dodd is done.

By rhetoric, Christie should be moving some parts in the right direction. Reality will likely reveal very little change.

Christie is faced with deeply entrenched special interests in a blue state. But who knows. Any change for the better is a change in the right direction. Good luck to you.