Popular notion, but I'm thinking in terms of a society's overall creation of wealth, not in soldiers and government contractors getting paid their livings.

The weapons of a state might be analogized with the antlers of a deer: they defend the deer, they aid the deer in promulgating his genes through deer-dom -- but they exact a cost to the deer's metabolism, growth, energy. Such expenditure might have been laid out in some other part of the deer, right? And yet, the deer would not do so well without them, in the end.

Necessary, but not wealth-generating overall; wealth-consuming instead.

At least one antilibertarian jinglenuts of a writer called places like Somalia, the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, and upcountry Afghanistan "libertarian heavens," when "libertarian hells" would be a somewhat more accurate description -- and the kleptocracies with the actual local power are not recognizable as libertarians of any description anyway. Not even Anarcho-libs.

Said anonymous jinglenuts seemed out to discredit libertarianism, perhaps by Alinskyite methods. Meh, who knows?

In summation; castrate the deer, but keep the horns.

Not advocating in particular; just observing. In perhaps missing my point -- I'm not sure whether you have or not -- you've set up a different scenario. Might be fruitful; should we discuss more?

I think we understand each other. I see that our deer is dying. Among other things, we've over invested in horns losing ground to the animals who've put more energy into their bodies. Metaphors aside, we've made a lot of bad investments as a country to the detriment of a couple things only the smallest minority oppose, infrastructure and education. Sensible investment in those two things make us more competitive. We should not lose sight of that during our quadrennial rut.

But when horns are too big, the animal goes extinct, yes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Elk

Respect government or government will hunt you down like a wounded deer
 

From here

So they tracked her down and forced her school to force her to write a letter of apology. I think what she did was stupid and petty. I think the governors office's response was Orwellian and Nixonian. The next time I hear a complaint about how 'liberal' institutions are stifling conservative students, I think I can bring this item up. Compared to some of the rhetoric about Obama, what she wrote was tame.

Hopey Changey, fail.

CBO: Stimulus hurts economy in the long run
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...DPn4Q.facebook

I think that was the point, though, merc, whether you agree with it or not. The idea is, if the government boosts things in the short term, that will be enough to set the ball rolling, and by the time the stimulus starts costing productivity the snowball effect of what it STIMULATED in the -private- sector will more than make up for the eventual lessening of the direct effects. Basically, the idea is, if we can get the economy on track NOW, it will be strong enough to survive the eventual side effects of the drug we used to save it. You can disagree with the effectiveness of that concept, but attacking it as if this wasn't a foreseeable consequence of the stimulus on the part of its proponents is disingenuous.

Hardly "disingenuous" at all. You are making assumptions about my intent. Show me the chorus of people who were saying the Stimulus was a bad idea and compare that to those who said it was a must pass. Remember Pelosi, Reid, and Obama telling us about all those shovel ready jobs? No go back and look at my numerous posts asking what are we going to do when the money runs out. Well unemployment is still at an AVERAGE of 9% and much higher in some states and areas. What did we get? A world record deficit and much of it wasted. Average costs per job created was around $400k each at the best estimate and about $1.2 million per job created at the worst. Now they are considering another failed stimulus package and a further growth of the deficit. Notice how many of these plans, whether for "Job Creation" or Obamacare or whatever all never really kick in till Obama will be long gone from his job.

I think you need to determine how much of the stimulus was for job creation and then recalculate those numbers.
IMO, it will be much more representative of reality.
Then look at the amounts spent on "other" things and assess how well that was spent.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
 

There are several political candidates and pundits who are
advocating the elimination of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

I thought it might be worthwhile to try to have a discussion
of these two entities, and the implications of keeping or eliminating them.

Here is Freddie Mac's website description of what they do:

Here is the Fannie Mae website's description of what they do:

Marketplace Liquidity
As I understand the operations of F&F, they are NOT the lending agency when someone buys a home.

Instead, a mortgage is developed by a bank, credit union, etc.
wherein the terms of the loan are defined, and the purchase funds are distributed to the new home owner.

Before the existence of F&F, the bank provided it's own funds and held the mortgage and processed the loan payments.
But with F&F, the bank can now sell such mortgages to F&F,
and thereby replenish the bank's funds to continue creating additional mortgages.

But, F&F do not buy these mortgages one-at-a-time.
Instead, the bank "bundles" several mortgages and establishes
the "quality" of the bundle, and then proceeds to negotiate the value with F&F.

Once F&F own these bundles of mortgages, they sell them to investors,
with assurances of value and quality... and may earn a profit during these transactions.

------------

OK, I hope other Dwellars will add or correct my description as needed,
and contribute to a political discussion of these institutions.
.

That really deserves a thread of its own.

Gingrich on the proper role of the Judiciary Branch
 

Elsewhere, I posted my concern over Gingrich's intentions for his presidency.
Here are excerpts from the articles I cited.

NY Times Editorial
Dec 10, 2011

Mr. Gingrich’s Attack on the Courts
----------------

Here is Gingrich's presentation: - it downloads a pdf file.

21st Century
Contract with America
Bringing the Courts Back Under the Constitution

Is anyone still willing to say: "Anyone but Obama"

I wonder how Supreme Court Judge Samuel Alito is feeling about Newt now.
Has he uttered the phrase: "Dear God, what have I wrought"

It was Alito, while working in the Reagan administration,
that expanded the concept of "Signing Statements" which in effect
allowed US Presidents to ignore parts of new legislation the President (by himself) deemed as unconstitutional.