Why you can't ****ing trust the government to do anything right...

From my study, what has changed is that in the 1600's-1800's it was mostly banks that were the vampiric monsters infecting governments. Today it's slightly more complicated with layers of corporations between government and banks, but the end result is roughly the same.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Let's do that. After that, we should go right into defining society and common good.

Or, maybe, we should just continue with anecdotal reasoning instead of a philosphical discussion.[/QUOTE]

There are so many examples of existing governments that function well and work in favor of their populace at large that your claim is not really worth delving into. I would say that the problem is these governments that have high employment, long life expectancies, and high overall measures of satisfaction and happiness also tend to have high rates of taxation. So you're going to overlook the measures of a quality government that flies in the face of your claims, putting it into your "evil" category because it does something you philosophically disagree with.

By doing so, you're refusing to confront challenges to your philosophical claims. By refusing to confront challenges, you are ill equipped to genuinely engage in philosophical discussion. Philosophy deals with truths, not selective truths.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']I don't know if it says this on that page, but the Bank of England was really one of the first multi-national corporations. It was owned by the Rothschild family, and expanded all over Europe, and eventually to the Colonies. When it expanded to the Colonies, it created a depression, and was a major cause of the revolution. The Founding Fathers knew what collaboration between a national bank and government was like. That's why the knew government's power had to be limited in order to stop this from happening in the new country.[/QUOTE]
Then why not explicitly prohibit it? They prohibited and otherwise limited the power of the government to do a whole slew of things. Hell, they found time to split a negro into five parts. If it was so dire, why didn't they get it in there?

I'm not even really disagreeing that they might have seen trouble on the horizon, I'm just saying that dirt farmers 300 years ago couldn't possibly have foreseen the reality of today.
[quote name='bmulligan']Comparing global influences 300 years ago to today is no stretch of the imagination. They are directly parallel. Not much has changed in the last 5000 years except now I know what my friends are doing 24/7 because of this internets thingy. I can also sail across the globe via satellite instead of sextant. Regardless of how much our technology has evolved, human nature, corporate nature, and governmental nature hasn't budged an iota. Certain principles remain unchanged.[/QUOTE]
I disagree. I think communication paired with mass accumulation of capital has so fundamentally changed the game that nothing is directly analogous. Sure, the East India whatev's did what they do, but it's small potatoes compared to the global ripple effect created by Exxon or WalMart or Microsoft or Toyota or GE or Samsung or Berkshire Hathaway. Sure, the 1600 company was dirty and could maybe knock over a country or 3 during their heyday. I'm willing to bet Exxon has knocked over that many governments in a year before.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Then why not explicitly prohibit it? They prohibited and otherwise limited the power of the government to do a whole slew of things. Hell, they found time to split a negro into five parts. If it was so dire, why didn't they get it in there?[/quote]
They sort of did. Article 1 Section 8
The Congress shall have power.......
.....To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
Unfortuantely, because of the split between the Hamilton led Federalists (who supported a national bank), and the Democratic-Republicans led by Jefferson (who were opposed to a national bank), stronger language was not put in the Constitution. As a result 2 national banks popped up within a 50 year time frame, and the last one was finally killed by Andrew Jackson.
I'm not even really disagreeing that they might have seen trouble on the horizon, I'm just saying that dirt farmers 300 years ago couldn't possibly have foreseen the reality of today.
Click to expand...
Could they have guessed that in the future people would be able to travel between continents in hours? No. However, they knew that merger between government and private intreasts meant trouble, even back then. They had seen powerful financial oligarchs rise in Europe, such as the Rothschilds, and knew what could happen.
I disagree. I think communication paired with mass accumulation of capital has so fundamentally changed the game that nothing is directly analogous. Sure, the East India whatev's did what they do, but it's small potatoes compared to the global ripple effect created by Exxon or WalMart or Microsoft or Toyota or GE or Samsung or Berkshire Hathaway. Sure, the 1600 company was dirty and could maybe knock over a country or 3 during their heyday. I'm willing to bet Exxon has knocked over that many governments in a year before.
Click to expand...
The Rothschilds gained control of much of the English economy by spreading the rumor that Napoleon had won at Waterloo. The markets crashed, and the Rothschilds bought whatever they wanted for a fraction of what it was worth. How did they do this? They had intelligence assets all over Europe that were able to tell them the Napoleon had lost at Waterloo a day before the government of England found out. Even back then, there were the few financial oligarchs who had enough money to have their own intelligence rings, and personal mercenaries. That's not much different than today.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']So what's your proposal?[/QUOTE]

Do you really need to ask? Not to trust government, just like our founders, because if you do you're just bending over and preparing yourself.
 
[quote name='speedracer']You're right. I just meant that it started that way (a counter influence), then the whole comments by Jefferson and Lincoln etc. about the corporation eating us, then them actually eating us.

We've danced this dance before I think. I'm gonna ask if you support more regulation to and you say you support the regulation on the books and I say we need more to address the current situation and you say we already have stuff on the books to deal with it and we go round and round.

Bout right? :D[/QUOTE]

Ha. I'd probably point to the OP as an example of the fact that just adding more regulations doesn't solve problems in at least many cases. If government is corrupt (it is) and big enough to influence just about everything (as it has become) then more regulation just becomes a weapon the government uses against the chumps who actually thought government would provide a level playing field instead of rewarding supporters of the corrupt and appalling major political parties.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']That's not really a solution at all...[/QUOTE]

Well, clearly giving up more power to the corrupt and inefficient must be the answer then.
 
willardhaven,

You bring up a good point. What is the solution? Clearly many of us have different ideas, but one commonality is that it all involved revoking government power instead of giving them more.

What you are seeing proof of is that there isn't really one universally accepted solution to these issues. I think that's because many people have realized/decided that our government is in an unfixable state without being totally rebooted. Until that happens, many believe, we are simply polishing shit.

While most of the country spends so much time trying to make the shit pile smell a little better or be a little shinier, many of us are just trying to make it smaller - because less shit is better than more shit if you can't get rid of the shit all-together.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='thrustbucket']What you are seeing proof of is that there isn't really one universally accepted solution to these issues. I think that's because many people have realized/decided that our government is in an unfixable state without being totally rebooted. Until that happens, many believe, we are simply polishing shit.[/QUOTE]

There's something strange about the Ron Paul supporters, to me. It's strange that you advocate such widespread and massive, immediate change, yet cite the problems that coincide with anything but slow, well thought out, evidenced and incremental changes as the precise reason we should not reform health care at all.

It would appear you're trying to have it both ways.
 
Well I am trying to have it both ways.

There are many solutions to a problem. Sometimes a more drastic and immediate solution seems like the only one. Other times it does not. It also depends on which, exact, problem we are discussing atm that will determine which side I fall on.

The post you linked is directly about HealthCare. We are attempting to make a massive change that deals with 1/6 of our GDP that will affect everyone - while still in a broken and corrupt system. That's just asking for trouble. So if we must do it, we better try very hard to make it as bulletproof against corruption as much as possible; which is difficult when most of the people working on it have alternative agendas to appease.

I do believe that both parties are broken, probably permanently. But until most people believe that, I am stuck, if I care and want things to get better, polishing the giant turd with everyone else and trying to have faith that the turd will some day turn into cheerios.

It's a lot like continuing to fix that 1981 Dautsun that hasn't run right since 1989. You know in the back of your head that the real solution is to just buy another car, but you can't do that until others agree and help you pay for it. So you just keep working on it, trying to keep it running, occasionally trying to convince others that a new car would save a lot of time and hassle.
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again: top-down replacement of political parties is a fool's errand.

Get local, emphasize local. There's not going to be another revolution. Ever. Not in the US. The only course of action if you think the parties are corrupt is to grow a new party. And you can't start with tomatoes in the hopes of getting seeds; you have to go in the other direction.

But you're inadvertently having it both ways on the same issue, because your concerns are economic at their foundation. You're concerned about the problems of restructuring health care in terms of the cost, so you don't want to see any revolutionary change. Yet you're concerned about the economic problems we face, so you insist on fundamental and immediate revolutionary change.
 
You are mostly right. But to clarify - it's simply that the momentum is too high already on Health Care. It is a revolution. Having a minor revolution inside a corrupt system, in many ways, is worse than having a full out revolution of everything, because it gives those in power an open window to take more. It's going to happen. It's gong to be corrupt. That's why my position on Health Care is just to attempt to force our lawmakers to fully disclose everything and not rush it.

I half agree with you with the grass-roots thing. But then again, look how things like 'tea party's are looked at by the national media or people such as yourself. I can't remember the last time a local-grass roots political outcry or campaign was taken seriously by anyone. Hell, even I started rolling my eyes at the home-made Ron Paul signs everywhere in the last election.
 
maybe they'll be taken seriously when they affect election outcomes.

i don't take them seriously for a number of reasons, including (1) the general degree of antiintellectual acumen and misinformation them they come armed with, and (2) that their concern with spending began on 1/21/09.

If things are as bad as they are claimed to be, getting upset now is akin to getting pissed off that your car just drove off a cliff with you in it, but being pretty okay with it until you're halfway down and *then* getting pissed off.

And they willfully ignore the $4B in *profit* the government has made in TARP funds that none of us ever expected (cynically I was with you there) to see repaid in the first place.

The hysteria is misinformed, in short. But that doesn't mean misinformed people can't affect election outcomes. But until constituents make good on their threats to "throw the bums out," there's nothing to take seriously. Even then, would you really advocate supporting a misinformed public through legislation that reifies such misinformation for the sole purpose of staying in office?

I'd like to think I wouldn't.

As for the idea that the system is "corrupt," well, I don't know how to respond to that. It seems to be cherry picking to me. The fears of the public option weren't about corruption, but the backhanded deals to big pharma were latched onto as such. But the public outcry isn't "let's have less corruption and pass a bill that allows the government to finally negotiate price structures with pharmaceuticals, like we should have done with medicare 6 years ago." It's about "socialism," and fear of a public option, and other boogeymen.

The response is not nuanced as you might think, I'm afraid. Fear of corruption should be responded to as targeted efforts at eliminating the source of corruption, not "fuck it all and fuck the whole bill." By advocating against any attempt at health care reform, I'm afraid you undermine your own claims of nuance.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I've said it before and I'll say it again: top-down replacement of political parties is a fool's errand.[/QUOTE]
Sure.
Get local, emphasize local. There's not going to be another revolution. Ever. Not in the US. The only course of action if you think the parties are corrupt is to grow a new party. And you can't start with tomatoes in the hopes of getting seeds; you have to go in the other direction.
Click to expand...
I suppose you weren't paying attention in 1992?
In the telephone poll of 815 registered voters nationwide, conducted June 4 to 8, Mr. Perot was supported by 39 percent, Mr. Bush by 31 percent, and Mr. Clinton by 25 percent. The poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points.
In a previous Gallup matchup in late May, Mr. Bush and Mr. Perot were tied at 35 percent each, while Mr. Clinton was supported by 25 percent.
No previous independent or third party candidate has ever placed second, much less first, in nearly six decades of Gallup's nationwide polling for President.
Click to expand...
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/11/u...-the-trail-poll-gives-perot-a-clear-lead.html
A revolution doesn't have to mean violence. The rise of a new third party that reforms the system would be a revolution.
A revolution (from the Latin revolutio, "a turn around") is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time. Aristotle described two types of political revolution:

  1. Complete change from one constitution to another
  2. Modification of an existing constitution.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution#cite_note-0
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution
If you think there is no chance of a revolution happening in this country, you haven't been paying attention. People are fed up with the Democrats, and the Republicans.
 
I paid attention to the outcome of the 1992 election, and not a poll from the midpoint of the election cycle that turned out to not put said third-party candidate into office.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I paid attention to the outcome of the 1992 election, and not a poll from the midpoint of the election cycle that turned out to not put said third-party candidate into office.[/QUOTE]
Do you remember the part where Ross Perot pulled out when it looked like he might win? That ruined his campaign. What do those polls show then? That there was enough support for a third party candidate to win in 1992, and it's very likely there is enough support for a third party candidate to win in 2012. If you need any more proof of this, look at Obama's poll numbers, and Congress' poll numbers.
 
Congressional poll numbers are always low. But error in attribution result in a high rate of incumbent re-election.

As for support for a third-party candidate, you have no proof of that at all. Disapproval with Obama doesn't mean an automatic in for any third-party candidate.

Two final points:
1) What could Perot have accomplished as president? Obama can't even get things done because of the weak-willed Democrat majority in Congress. How comparatively effective would a President be if all other positions in the federal government were politically opposed to them? Quite a fizzle of a revolution.

All I'm advocating is that greater effectiveness starts local. If you want to argue against that and engage in the fool's quest to put someone in the White House who won't accomplish squat because he/she lacks all support at the federal level, be my guest.

2) If Ross Perot is the closest we've come to a successful third-party candidate, my faith in the two-party system has been strongly reaffirmed. It was Stockdale's famous "who am I? what am I doing here?" quip during the VP debate, but it was just as appropriate of Perot himself.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Congressional poll numbers are always low. But error in attribution result in a high rate of incumbent re-election.[/QUOTE]
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1844140220070919?sp=true
Record lows for Congress. Record lows for Bush.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ministration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Record lows at this time in a presidency for Obama. I'm sure that's all normal.
As for support for a third-party candidate, you have no proof of that at all. Disapproval with Obama doesn't mean an automatic in for any third-party candidate.
Click to expand...
No, I have no proof that a third party will win in 2012. You have no proof Obama will win in 2012. Also, I cannot prove the sun won't explode in 10 days. It's all about trends. Current events form future trends. The things that are happening today point toward people finally learning to distrust the two party system. Both Obama and Bush, both have had terrible approval ratings. The economy is going to hell. People are losing everything they have. That changes things.
Two final points:
1) What could Perot have accomplished as president? Obama can't even get things done because of the weak-willed Democrat majority in Congress. How comparatively effective would a President be if all other positions in the federal government were politically opposed to them? Quite a fizzle of a revolution.
Click to expand...
How do you know that a third party wouldn't rise up and gain seats in Congress, not just the presidency? On Ross Perot, Jesse Ventura was governor of Minnesota. His party had no seats in the Minnesota Legislature. You know what happened? He got shit done. And he did it right.
All I'm advocating is that greater effectiveness starts local. If you want to argue against that and engage in the fool's quest to put someone in the White House who won't accomplish squat because he/she lacks all support at the federal level, be my guest.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying that electing a third party candidate would change everything. It would change some things though, but ultimately what needs to be done is to gain control of Congress. If there was a big enough movement, that's exactly what would happen.
2) If Ross Perot is the closest we've come to a successful third-party candidate, my faith in the two-party system has been strongly reaffirmed. It was Stockdale's famous "who am I? what am I doing here?" quip during the VP debate, but it was just as appropriate of Perot himself.
Click to expand...
Yeah, there really hasn't been many major third party contenders lately. Ross Perot wasn't a good candidate, but his success, (at least at one point) proves that there is the possibility that a third party could win the White House.

EDIT: Actually, now that I think about it, a third party candidate could do a lot. They could put Executive Order 11110 to good use, stop the torture, pull out of Afghanistan, and other countries, repeal ridiculous Bush's executive orders, and *gasp* veto bills.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='willardhaven']I didn't say that either, is it a full moon or something? Everyone seems like they have a stick up their butt tonight.[/QUOTE]

Sorry man, just came out that way...wasn't meant to be so snarky.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I've said it before and I'll say it again: top-down replacement of political parties is a fool's errand.

Get local, emphasize local. There's not going to be another revolution. Ever. Not in the US. The only course of action if you think the parties are corrupt is to grow a new party. And you can't start with tomatoes in the hopes of getting seeds; you have to go in the other direction.

But you're inadvertently having it both ways on the same issue, because your concerns are economic at their foundation. You're concerned about the problems of restructuring health care in terms of the cost, so you don't want to see any revolutionary change. Yet you're concerned about the economic problems we face, so you insist on fundamental and immediate revolutionary change.[/QUOTE]

it's a long way to the promise land
so you'd better well know your way
where's a ship on the ocean
and an albatross who is trying to lead you astray
leaders, politicians, and power whores
are in line to receive your choice
and you bet your ass, if you give it to them,
they will gladly take your voice
and it's a long way to the promise land
wo-oh oh oh oh
it's a long way to the promise land,
if we work we might find it here
there's no substitute for enlightenment,
there's no reason for bridled fear
when you join the people who've joined the club
you gotta clench and play your hand
cuz if you fall in line you're gonna fall in time
and you'll never make a stand
it's a long way to the promise land
wo-oh oh oh oh
what are you going to do?
when they call for you?
bend and capitulate?
or keep your head on straight?
easy answers bought without experience,
is gonna lead you to certain doom
because the truth is just what you make of it,
it begins and ends with you!
and it's a long way to the promise land
wo-oh oh oh oh
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Congressional poll numbers are always low. But error in attribution result in a high rate of incumbent re-election.

As for support for a third-party candidate, you have no proof of that at all. Disapproval with Obama doesn't mean an automatic in for any third-party candidate.[/QUOTE]

The former is most assuredly true (all those congressmen are crooks! but my congressman is honest and true).

As for the second point, have you seen poll data indicating a rise in the number of people claiming to be independents recently? You might say that many of them have left the Republican Party following its implosion from blatant and comprehensive corruption, not to mention spectacular moral failure. Still, there are more independents than Democrats or Republicans (39-33-26 in the last Gallup poll here http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx ). That many independents is a larger potential base to start from for an independent candidate than the Democratic or Republican bases, and a moderate candidate, especially a center-right moderate (since independents lean slightly to the right in this country), would seem to stand a good chance of picking off moderate Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats.
 
WOAH - Déjà vu!

FDA Banned Flavored Cigs, But Not Menthols. Why?

Aside from the fact that banning them would cut nearly between a quarter to a third of the profit out of the industry and waste decades of niche marketing, the Act that gave the FDA this power was co-authored by ginormous tobacco company Philip Morris (now called Altria), which had a clear incentive to keep menthols on the market but shut out the flavored cigarettes that smaller competitors have been introducing.
Click to expand...

And look, it's got racism to boot!
And sadly, menthols have been deliberately marketed to African Americans for decades, in an attempt to create a thriving market for a specific group. It worked—75% of menthol cigarettes in the U.S. are smoked by African Americans.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='elprincipe']But isn't that capitalism in action? :roll:[/QUOTE]

Capitalism is all about "Hey, buy my stuff. Gimme what I want." We all understand that. No one here (I hope) is dumb enough to blindly trust any corporation.

As I've pointed out before, however, there are those who honestly feel everything the government does *must* be good for them (depending on who is in charge, of course). I expect a company to go to a government official and say "Hey, here's $5 million in donations for your re-election campaign. Now, sign this bill letting me kick small children in the face and sell their loose teeth." I expect the government officials to tell these companies "No."

One group is supposed to be out for money and power. The other group is supposed to stand up and be a voice for the people. Unfortunately, we got two groups who are only interested in money and power.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Capitalism is all about "Hey, buy my stuff. Gimme what I want." We all understand that. No one here (I hope) is dumb enough to blindly trust any corporation.

As I've pointed out before, however, there are those who honestly feel everything the government does *must* be good for them (depending on who is in charge, of course). I expect a company to go to a government official and say "Hey, here's $5 million in donations for your re-election campaign. Now, sign this bill letting me kick small children in the face and sell their loose teeth." I expect the government officials to tell these companies "No."

One group is supposed to be out for money and power. The other group is supposed to stand up and be a voice for the people. Unfortunately, we got two groups who are only interested in money and power.[/QUOTE]

Dude, I repeat: :roll: :roll: :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top