This is not directed at pbarrett at all, just some of my thoughts in 
this area.

If we're going to discuss politics on the paleo email list, I'd like to 
move the conversation to the benefits of libertarianism 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian).  It seems to me that even 
Anarcho libertarianism/capitalism  
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalists) is quite compatible 
with the philosophy of paleo, getting back to the simple, without 
authoritarian oversight, buying healthy foods, often locally, without 
contamination with "modern" processed ingredients, and moving away from 
enforced collectivists/socialist practices and moving towards voluntary 
choices at all levels.  Government regulation and rules always pervert 
market values (sugar price supports, farm give backs to not grow food, 
import restrictions on food, price supports, promotion of corn and 
grain, etc., etc.,, etc.) and result in the average guy on the street 
paying more for lower value and lower quality.

This bailout will provide opportunities for wealthy to make large 
profits at the expense of the average tax payer.  I have been involved 
in getting a business together to buy discounted assets at auction from 
the FDIC.  For example, buying groups of car loans or mortgages or 
business loans often go for 10-12  cents on the dollar.  It takes 
knowledge of the "government" regulations, permission to bid, adequate 
cash immediately available, understanding the rules and limits placed on 
getting investors (sometimes qualified investor status) and the 
knowledge of the rules/regulations of "collections" and negotiation with 
existing debtors.  These kinds of opportunities only exist because of 
government regulation and interference in the markets.  These limits on 
bidding on failed business lowers the cost of these assets dramatically.

The bailout also has its roots in the governments "Community 
Redevelopment Act" which required banks to loan into lower income areas, 
remove or lower down payment requirements, and lower lending standards.  
This was made even worse in the late nineties with additional regulation 
to accelerate this process.  Banks were required to provide certain 
amounts of these low quality loans with the government enforcing these 
requirements while using the government supported mortgage "businesses" 
(fanny, fredie) to buy, collect, repackage, and resell these loans to 
financial institutions both in the US and internationally.  We, the 
average person, get the down side of these now failed government 
policies and the downside of paying for the bailout.  Meanwhile, wealthy 
continue to have artificial opportunities to generate gross profits 
without providing value to anyone.  Lower standards of living is always 
the result of more than the most limited of governments.

It's government regulation, driven by large business concerns who frame 
the issue as "consumer friendly", that want to limit our ability to 
distinguish GMO foods from non-GMO foods, that want to limit our ability 
to avoid irradiated foods, that want to pervert any definition of 
"organic", and take away as many choices from the consumer to "choose" 
options they would prefer.  In a libertarian government, the ability to 
choose paleo as well as many other personal lifestyle choices would be 
expanded dramatically, the best of personal freedom, personal 
responsibility, and personal choice.

Steve

pbarrett wrote:
> Gee, I thought the Republicans have done quite a bit for us: war, 
> economic meltdown, Hurricane ravaged cities, shredding of the 
> Constitution, politicization of the Justice Dept.......... what more 
> do you want?
> Pat Barrett  [log in to unmask]
> http://ideas.lang-learn.us/barrett.php
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "zack passman" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 4:18 AM
> Subject: Re: Folks, this is a sell out, not a bail out.....
>
>
>> Neither of these two major parties are going to do anything for you.  
>> If you
>> watched "debate" one, there was more agreeing than stark contrast.  
>> May I
>> suggest to those out there disenfranchised with both parties who may be
>> voting for a "lesser of two evils" or not voting at all to go in the 
>> voting
>> booth and select a 3rd party candidate.  Neither Bob Barr nor Ralph 
>> Nader
>> are for any bail out.  Don't let people tell you  not to vote for them
>> becuase they can't win either.  They are on enough ballots where if 
>> all the
>> non-voting registered voters went out and selected them instead of not
>> votnig at all, either could win.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 4:42 AM, Brenda Young 
>> <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>>
>>> AMEN!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>> The concentration of power is always a prelude to the destruction of a
>>> nation.
>>> This $700 billion bailout plan would put a huge portion of the U.S. 
>>> economy
>>> (and
>>> the majority of taxpayer dollars) under the control of ONE person, 
>>> without
>>> oversight, without regulation and without LAW.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/business/29bill.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>