or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Government is not the solution to our problem, it IS the problem
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Government is not the solution to our problem, it IS the problem - Page 12

post #441 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


Ron Paul... The last bloody guy in the US govt that has any common sense left. This guy should have been President.

Best 48 minutes of my life this past month. (Besides in the club tonight... superbly hot women).
Edited by sr2012 - 11/17/12 at 11:27am
post #442 of 573
http://www.dailypaul.com/251842/turned-in-my-resignation

"Chairman Munisteri,
It is with regret that I write this letter but I am officially leaving the Republican Party. After yesterday's culmination of events at the National Convention in Tampa and the series of events throughout the primaries that displayed to me behavior that is fairly unattractive I am left with no choice but to leave the party. I apologize in advance because the Republican Party of Texas was not a direct cause or instigator of the events which I will outline in detail but it merely was a silent witness to these corrupt events. For that, I cannot remain.
What reason is the Republican Party labeled “Republican” when it no longer represents that form of governing? The events of the primaries and the totalitarian program ran at the National Convention last night opened my eyes to the true nature of the Republican Party, one of lies, deception, and tyranny. The election process to choose the Republican nominee was as far from Republican as it could be. It favored a pure Democracy of the primary caucus and the heavy handedness from the top of the organization on who can and cannot stay in the race, regardless of public opinion on those candidates. The actions taken by corrupt state parties, acting on orders to suppress and deceive the Ron Paul delegate constituency, were truly reprehensible and the individuals involved should be removed from office for their deeds. They do not exemplify Republican values, American values, or the decency of human values. Yet, at the credentials committee and the permanent rules committee, these types of people were rewarded for their shady efforts and given a pat on the back for doing what they did to sabotage state conventions in favor of Mitt Romney. For that, I cannot remain.
Watching the National Convention live yesterday I could not help but notice the makeup of the RNC's base. I saw it first hand and as an alternate at the Texas State Convention. People over the age of 65 should be involved with politics but should not make up the majority of the party. This is what I saw on the convention floor. The lifeless faces of people well past their age of involvement with current events, restrained to getting news of the outside world through Fox News and chain letters in email. The alternative is accepting youth who do not watch television but instead read books on the history of conservatism, Liberty, and on historical figures both Democrat and Republican who exemplified limited government and moral standards far past the scope of today's Republican leaders. I remember back to the Texas state convention for the selection of national delegates and at large delegates that the youth, people aged 18-28, were neglected, sneered at, and given a pat on the head for their participation. Many of which were Ron Paul supporters who were excited about Liberty, the Constitution, and a truly limited conservative government. All of which coincidentally are things missing from today's Republican party. In our District elections, national delegate candidates that read off of cards or passed out expensive glossy fliers were rewarded with passage to Tampa while people speaking extemporaneously and from the heart on concrete issues like non interventionism, the federal reserve, and free market economies were shunned because these ideas required thought by the audience. I can tell you, Mr. Munisteri, that if the party's demographics do not change, and change soon, the Republican party will be no more. This election cycle saw the involvement of hundreds of thousands of young energetic voters ready to be accepted into the Republican party via Ron Paul's grassroots revolution, only to be turned away in favor of soulless skeletons with makeup and deep pockets to fill the national party's coffers. The RNC might as well have signed it's death warrant with this act. For that, I cannot remain.
I am including my shredded membership card as I can no longer carry it, as the Republican party has chosen a Joseph Stalin form of fascism over the methods of a constitutional republic. The events that transpired this election season were not by accident and were ordered from the top. And what the party wants, they will get. They will have to accept the consequences of their actions though, which will include a mass exodus from their ranks to more Liberty and Constitutionally sound parties.
post #443 of 573
Thread Starter 

1000

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #444 of 573
Government per se is not the problem. The US government is the problem.
post #445 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Government per se is not the problem. The US government is the problem.

 

Continually repeating this bumper sticker statement doesn't make it true.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #446 of 573
Oh, the irony.
post #447 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

So I CLAIM?  You don't seem to understand...I'm not not speaking vaguely here.  I'm talking about direct, tangible and measurable benefits.  If you want specifics I'll PM them to you.  

So, you're not proud enough of whatever it was you supposedly accomplished to post it here?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #448 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Government per se is not the problem. The US government is the problem.

 

So they are solution by virtue of being the problem?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #449 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


So, you're not proud enough of whatever it was you supposedly accomplished to post it here?

 

<forehead slap>  

 

NTSA

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #450 of 573

In Orlando, You Can’t Grow Your Own Garden

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #451 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

In Orlando, You Can’t Grow Your Own Garden

 

Hopefully that will be thrown out at some level.  One would think that, in court, the City would have to show a compelling reason to limit the use of their property in such a manner.  Definitely an example of the encroachment of the State. 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #452 of 573
Thread Starter 

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #453 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:

Hopefully that will be thrown out at some level.  One would think that, in court, the City would have to show a compelling reason to limit the use of their property in such a manner.  Definitely an example of the encroachment of the State. 
Obviously it's an issue of neighborhood aesthetics. I'm not saying it's right, but that's the reason, in case you're still looking for it.
post #454 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Obviously it's an issue of neighborhood aesthetics. I'm not saying it's right, but that's the reason, in case you're still looking for it.

 

Obviously?  Do you know that for sure?  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #455 of 573
So what's the effect of this (poorly labeled) citation that's merely record keeping that there was damage to the house?
post #456 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Obviously it's an issue of neighborhood aesthetics. I'm not saying it's right, but that's the reason, in case you're still looking for it.

 

I knew what the reason was. Don't see how that makes any difference.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #457 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

I knew what the reason was. Don't see how that makes any difference.

 

It probably does, but only if we're talking about an eyesore.  Then again, I don't see that stated in the article, so who knows.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #458 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

It probably does, but only if we're talking about an eyesore.  Then again, I don't see that stated in the article, so who knows.  

 

We'll disagree on this. I don't see the state as the arbiter and enforcer of aesthetics.

 

That said, I have no problem where a person knowingly enters into a private HOA-type agreement that governs these issues. Some may argue that this would be basically the same as the city, just at a smaller scope. Probably true, but the smaller scope matters here. It allows smaller, more customized sets of these guidelines rather than a one-size fits all thing for 10's or 100's of thousands of people.

 

The principle here is the idea of subsidiarity which proposes that rules, regulations and such should be pushed to the lowest, most local level as practical and possible where the issues can be dealt with in the best context. The city may or may not be the right level. Orlando, for example, is huge. This strikes me as something that can and should be handled at a neighborhood level.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #459 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

We'll disagree on this. I don't see the state as the arbiter and enforcer of aesthetics.

 

Hmm.  My main point was that I didn't see aesthetics mentioned specifically.  Do you oppose local governments regulating eyesores?  For example, is there any justification for prohibiting rusted out cars, 6 foot tall weeds and general (major) disrepair?  If so, I suppose we do disagree to an extent.  I think that an elected government should work towards preventing these kinds of things for the betterment of the community.  Private citizens can't really do this, unless we're going to have Landscaping Vigilante Justice (which hey, I'd totally participate in).   

 

 

 

Quote:
That said, I have no problem where a person knowingly enters into a private HOA-type agreement that governs these issues. Some may argue that this would be basically the same as the city, just at a smaller scope. Probably true, but the smaller scope matters here. It allows smaller, more customized sets of these guidelines rather than a one-size fits all thing for 10's or 100's of thousands of people.

 

I tend to agree, and that answers my question to an extent.   Scale is important.  When my HOA decided to be a bag of d***s over the simple fact that I left my sealed trash can outside my garage, I only had to deal with a few people (thank God, because that was bad enough).  

 

 

 

Quote:
The principle here is the idea of subsidiarity which proposes that rules, regulations and such should be pushed to the lowest, most local level as practical and possible where the issues can be dealt with in the best context. The city may or may not be the right level. Orlando, for example, is huge. This strikes me as something that can and should be handled at a neighborhood level.

 

Excellent point, and I agree.  Local bodies can also be more flexible and timely in changing any unpopular and/or bad rules.  Then again, small HOA's often have fiefdom mentality and become power hungry.  Such is government at any level, I suppose.  You know what they say about keeping your friends close and your enemies closer?  Yeah, it applies to government too.  :) 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #460 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Do you oppose local governments regulating eyesores?  For example, is there any justification for prohibiting rusted out cars, 6 foot tall weeds and general (major) disrepair?  If so, I suppose we do disagree to an extent.  I think that an elected government should work towards preventing these kinds of things for the betterment of the community.  Private citizens can't really do this, unless we're going to have Landscaping Vigilante Justice (which hey, I'd totally participate in).

 

The trouble we have here is the high degree of subjectivity involved. The second problem is the question of whether or not this is a legitimate role for government. I think it is not. If such things are important, people would be free to buy in places where there is a pre-defined and well known HOA type agreement in place. I think private citizen could do it (not the enforcement piece) by...you know...interacting with their neighbors and talking to them and even offering to help.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I tend to agree, and that answers my question to an extent.   Scale is important.  When my HOA decided to be a bag of d***s over the simple fact that I left my sealed trash can outside my garage, I only had to deal with a few people (thank God, because that was bad enough).

 

Yeah. We have recently become part of an HOA and the difficulty in dealing even with a small community in this way confirms many of my concerns and doubts about governing even larger groups of people over anything except the most basic things that we almost all universally agree on (don't murder, assault, steal, etc.)

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Excellent point, and I agree.  Local bodies can also be more flexible and timely in changing any unpopular and/or bad rules.  Then again, small HOA's often have fiefdom mentality and become power hungry.  Such is government at any level, I suppose.  You know what they say about keeping your friends close and your enemies closer?  Yeah, it applies to government too.  :) 

 

Plus they can tune the rules and regulations to the context. The higher you go the more you have the one-size fits all problem. This is why I so strongly oppose the strident federalism we see. About 90% of the federal government currently does can (and should) be pushed down to the states and, many of those things, pushed even further down. In other words, politically speaking, I'm a decentralist vs. a centralist.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #461 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

The trouble we have here is the high degree of subjectivity involved. The second problem is the question of whether or not this is a legitimate role for government. I think it is not. If such things are important, people would be free to buy in places where there is a pre-defined and well known HOA type agreement in place. I think private citizen could do it (not the enforcement piece) by...you know...interacting with their neighbors and talking to them and even offering to help.

 

Eh, I think that in this respect the HOA and City are basically the same.  Both are elected "governments."  People can check local codes and restrictions before purchase in either community.  Though, we're talking about a pretty large area when we get to a town the size for Orlando.  

 

As for private citizens and neighbors:  I agree that this is what should happen.  But I don't think it works in reality.  I'm sure there are many examples where people have tried reasoning with and even helping neighbors keep their properties.  But in the end, only a body with some enforcement power can actually do anything.  Are you suggesting that people don't engage in this behavior because they think government will do it for them?   

 

 

 

Quote:
Yeah. We have recently become part of an HOA and the difficulty in dealing even with a small community in this way confirms many of my concerns and doubts about governing even larger groups of people over anything except the most basic things that we almost all universally agree on (don't murder, assault, steal, etc.)

 

Yup.  Me too.  HOAs gone wild seems to be a common theme.  It seems that at every level this occurs, from the feds right down to local school boards.  

 

 

 

Quote:
Plus they can tune the rules and regulations to the context. The higher you go the more you have the one-size fits all problem. This is why I so strongly oppose the strident federalism we see. About 90% of the federal government currently does can (and should) be pushed down to the states and, many of those things, pushed even further down. In other words, politically speaking, I'm a decentralist vs. a centralist.

 

Understood.  I tend to favor smaller, more localized government as well.  I found your use of the term "Federalism" to be interesting, because it got me thinking about different meanings of the word.  You mean Federalism in the traditional American context (strong central govt) as opposed to the more modern usage, which is closer to the European meaning.

 

 

 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #462 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Eh, I think that in this respect the HOA and City are basically the same.  Both are elected "governments."  People can check local codes and restrictions before purchase in either community.  Though, we're talking about a pretty large area when we get to a town the size for Orlando.

 

Yeah, and I think the size is the issue here. Not just for Orlando.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

As for private citizens and neighbors:  I agree that this is what should happen.  But I don't think it works in reality.  I'm sure there are many examples where people have tried reasoning with and even helping neighbors keep their properties.  But in the end, only a body with some enforcement power can actually do anything.

 

And I see that as a problem. At the end of the day this is (or should be) a private property issue.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Are you suggesting that people don't engage in this behavior because they think government will do it for them?

 

Yes.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yup.  Me too.  HOAs gone wild seems to be a common theme.  It seems that at every level this occurs, from the feds right down to local school boards.

 

It's not even just an "HOA gone wild" situation (we don't have that; and I acknowledge that's an issue too). It's just dealing with even a small number of people (20-40) and getting agreement on things. The larger the group the fewer issues on which there will be strong and deep agreement and we start moving into the territory of the majority simply imposing their will upon the minority.

 

It seems to me that a central government that governs the issues associated with 300M+ people ought to be limited to dealing with those issues on which there's like 99% agreement (e.g., don't murder, don't steal, etc.) As you move down the stack (e.g., state, county, city, neighborhood/HOA, etc.) you can have issues over which there is less agreement nationally, but there is great agreement within that geographical region. I mean, for example, it might be just fine in some neighborhoods that people have gardens growing in their front lawns. Everyone in the neighborhood values the freedom to do this more than having pristine, English garden-like front lawns. In another neighborhood they may have a different ordering of values and priorities. Decentralization respects diversity (which is especially ironic given the leftist penchant for centralization of powers of almost every kind.)

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Understood.  I tend to favor smaller, more localized government as well.  I found your use of the term "Federalism" to be interesting, because it got me thinking about different meanings of the word.  You mean Federalism in the traditional American context (strong central govt) as opposed to the more modern usage, which is closer to the European meaning.

 

Yes I do.


Edited by MJ1970 - 12/6/12 at 10:01am

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #463 of 573

Government, The Thief:

 

 

Quote:
How secure are property rights if the police can take your stuff and keep it, citing no particular reason at all? Not very secure. This is the way police work in the developing world. Of course, this practice is increasingly common in the U.S. too.
 
Municipalities around the nation are battling to stay afloat, and local police departments are increasingly focused on profits instead of “protecting and serving.” Retired LAPD deputy chief of police Stephen Downing told FoxNews Latino, “The federal government has turned policing into policing for profit.”
 
For example, the police seized $30 million in cash on the southwest United States border in 2011. Where does the money go? Well, if the local cops make the seizure, they keep the money. If the feds snatch the property, they keep it. If it’s a joint operation, they split the dough. Can you imagine the fights that must take place over the booty these police pirates are confiscating?

 

Quote:
What if you’re a New Jersey insurance adjuster driving through Tennessee as part of your job? You’re stopped for speeding and asked if you happen to be carrying a large amount of cash. It so happened George Reby had $22,000 cash in a bag in his back seat. He’d been negotiating for a car on eBay and wanted to be ready if he could make a deal.
 
Officer Larry Bates of the Monterey, Tenn., police department seized the $22,000, figuring anyone carrying that much cash must be up to no good. “The safest place to put your money, if it’s legitimate, is in a bank account,” the officer explained. “He stated he had two. I would put it in a bank account. It draws interest and it’s safer.”
 
Reby was stunned that the cop could legally take his property for no apparent reason. “I never had any clue that they thought they could take my money legally,” Reby said. “I didn’t do anything wrong.”
 
Indeed, other than going too fast, Reby hadn’t done anything wrong, so Officer Bates didn’t arrest him. It was Reby’s cash that was suspicious, and it was the cash that the department wanted for its coffers. “No, it’s not illegal to carry cash,” Bates said. “Again, it’s what the cash is being used for to facilitate or what it is being utilized for.”
 
The local news channel pointed out to Officer Bates that he had no proof the cash was being used for no good. But Bates countered with, “And he couldn’t prove it was legitimate.”
 
It turns out that property can be confiscated if it’s thought that the money was involved in illegal activity. In Tennessee, if the out-of-staters do not hire attorneys and return for a hearing about their matter, they forfeit their property. Many aren’t given notice of the hearings.

 

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #464 of 573

So the actions of one rogue officer (or one rogue department) show how bad government is in general? Not to mention the guy got the money back. Every dollar, though admittedly, he was seriously inconvenienced.

 

And drug money confiscated at the border? What are they supposed to do with that money? Give it back to the cartels?

 

Oh, and of course, a privatized police force wouldn't do any of that... 1rolleyes.gif

post #465 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So the actions of one rogue officer (or one rogue department)...

 

Actually, there have been a lot of reports on this, particularly through TN (for some reason.)

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

...bad government is in general?

 

Not particularly...it is the many bad things the government does that show how bad the government is.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Not to mention the guy got the money back.

 

How delightful of you to be an apologist for this.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And drug money confiscated at the border? What are they supposed to do with that money? Give it back to the cartels?

 

Well, drugs should be legalized, then that question goes away.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Oh, and of course, a privatized police force wouldn't do any of that... 1rolleyes.gif

 

Anyone that would do so would, rightly, be called a criminal gang. Try to keep up here.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #466 of 573
Haha criminal under whose laws? And what police force would arrest these "criminals"?
post #467 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Haha criminal under whose laws? And what police force would arrest these "criminals"?

 

I know you think you've got your "gotcha" moment. But it's merely because you're either not paying attention or not thinking things through.

 

 

There are serious discussions that could be had here. But you don't really want that.

 

I'm quite tired of dealing with this simple-minded thinking. I hope for better from you tonton, I really do (or did.)

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #468 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Yeah, and I think the size is the issue here. Not just for Orlando.

 

Got it.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:

And I see that as a problem. At the end of the day this is (or should be) a private property issue.

 

 

I agree it's a problem, though I don't think it changes reality, nor do I think that problem can necessarily be solved.  As to this issue, it's not that I oppose some regulation by local governments as to the use and appearance of property.  It's that they should have to show a compelling interest to regulate to this degree.  For example, rusted out cars are not just an eyesore, they are dangerous.  In my father's community (planned community with HOA), they regulate certain plantings, mostly due to size.  A guy put in some sort of palm tree that grows to like 40 feet, so the the HOA had to take action.  These are houses that are 8 ft apart and a have a common look.  So it's the nature of the restriction and that size that bother me here.  Orlando shouldn't be able to regulate private property use because of an aesthetic preference, which is what I view this as.  

 

 

 

Quote:
Yes.

 

Just wanted to be clear.  You might be right about that.  Then again, that might be more an argument for the degree of regulation.  

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:

 

It's not even just an "HOA gone wild" situation (we don't have that; and I acknowledge that's an issue too). It's just dealing with even a small number of people (20-40) and getting agreement on things. The larger the group the fewer issues on which there will be strong and deep agreement and we start moving into the territory of the majority simply imposing their will upon the minority.

 

It seems to me that a central government that governs the issues associated with 300M+ people ought to be limited to dealing with those issues on which there's like 99% agreement (e.g., don't murder, don't steal, etc.) As you move down the stack (e.g., state, county, city, neighborhood/HOA, etc.) you can have issues over which there is less agreement nationally, but there is great agreement within that geographical region. I mean, for example, it might be just fine in some neighborhoods that people have gardens growing in their front lawns. Everyone in the neighborhood values the freedom to do this more than having pristine, English garden-like front lawns. In another neighborhood they may have a different ordering of values and priorities. Decentralization respects diversity (which is especially ironic given the leftist penchant for centralization of powers of almost every kind.)

 

 

 

Yes I do.

 

 

I tend to agree.  And there is an easy way to solve the problem nationally:  Follow the damn Constitution.  We can't have that now, can we?  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #469 of 573

California misses state revenue projections...by a billion dollars. Apparently, accountants are the problem, too.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #470 of 573

One of the biggest problems with government at the national level, is its merger with, in a symbiotic relationship, with big business (not necessarily US owned either, but multinational... and small business and mom 'n pop enterprise are comparatively shut out). This is a problem which has no solution: lawmakers are never going take steps which effectively shoot themselves and their sponsors, in the foot, by passing regulations which tackle a climate of corruption and parasitism which has been the order of the day in DC for decades. Government, by rights, should be devolved/separated from private enterprise/special interest, and the emphasis of government should be in the service of, and accountability to, the public, the electorate. Keep the government out of private enterprise, and keep private enterprise out of the government. This of course is theoretical, idealistic, over-simplistic, and way too late.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #471 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

One of the biggest problems with government at the national level, is its merger with, in a symbiotic relationship, with big business (not necessarily US owned either, but multinational... and small business and mom 'n pop enterprise are comparatively shut out). This is a problem which has no solution: lawmakers are never going take steps which effectively shoot themselves and their sponsors, in the foot, by passing regulations which tackle a climate of corruption and parasitism which has been the order of the day in DC for decades. Government, by rights, should be devolved/separated from private enterprise/special interest, and the emphasis of government should be in the service of, and accountability to, the public, the electorate. Keep the government out of private enterprise, and keep private enterprise out of the government. This of course is theoretical, idealistic, over-simplistic, and way too late.

 

I agree, though I'd say this in't just a problem at the national level and it isn't limited to large corporate interests.

 

More generally it is the marriage of special interests of various forms and sizes and the state.

 

However, I would suggest this is only a symptom of a deeper problem.

 

The real question is: Why do special interests get into bed with the state?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #472 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

I agree, though I'd say this in't just a problem at the national level and it isn't limited to large corporate interests.

 

More generally it is the marriage of special interests of various forms and sizes and the state.

 

However, I would suggest this is only a symptom of a deeper problem.

 

The real question is: Why do special interests get into bed with the state?

 

I'd be careful to separate "special interests" from "big business."  Special interests are fine...they are part of democracy.  People organize to achieve the changes they want.  The problem is the system of campaign contributions and how the lobbying is done.   The problem there is we get into free speech rights, which corporations have, too (and I agree they should to a degree).   Should corporations be free to run ads and publicly advocate change?  Yes.  Should they be able to give to specific candidates, pay for trips, etc?  No.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #473 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I'd be careful to separate "special interests" from "big business."  Special interests are fine...they are part of democracy.  People organize to achieve the changes they want.  The problem is the system of campaign contributions and how the lobbying is done.   The problem there is we get into free speech rights, which corporations have, too (and I agree they should to a degree).   Should corporations be free to run ads and publicly advocate change?  Yes.  Should they be able to give to specific candidates, pay for trips, etc?  No.  

 

I disagree.

 

When I'm speaking of "special interests," I'm speaking of groups (whatever legal form they take and whatever size they are) that are seeking special benefits and privileges from the state. When these "special interests" are seeking changes they want that ultimately infringe upon the rights of others, then it is a problem. And this is the problem we have. We have special interests of every form and size attempting to use the state as an instrument of personal profit (in the broad sense of that term) at the expense or to the detriment of others.

 

Ultimately this all comes down to what we think the purpose and role of the state is (or isn't.)

 

If the state's role is simply to protect the life, liberty and property of its citizens, then about 90% of what it currently does is invalid by that standard and any "special interest" that lobbies for special treatment and benefits is lobbying for the state to do something beyond its legitimate and appointed roles and responsibilities.

 

The point about campaign finance and lobbying rules totally misses the point. It is a focus on symptoms rather than the disease. The constant calls for "reform" of these things is just a futile and endless game of "whack-a-mole" in which you keep treating symptoms with ineffective bandages rather than going after the deeper problem.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #474 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

I disagree.

 

When I'm speaking of "special interests," I'm speaking of groups (whatever legal form they take and whatever size they are) that are seeking special benefits and privileges from the state. When these "special interests" are seeking changes they want that ultimately infringe upon the rights of others, then it is a problem. And this is the problem we have. We have special interests of every form and size attempting to use the state as an instrument of personal profit (in the broad sense of that term) at the expense or to the detriment of others.

 

We don't disagree then.  You're just using the term differently than I.  

 


 

 

 

Quote:

Ultimately this all comes down to what we think the purpose and role of the state is (or isn't.)

 

If the state's role is simply to protect the life, liberty and property of its citizens, then about 90% of what it currently does is invalid by that standard and any "special interest" that lobbies for special treatment and benefits is lobbying for the state to do something beyond its legitimate and appointed roles and responsibilities.

 

Yes.  Though that would seem to be part of any democratic system.  It would be nice if we, as a nation, could have the debate about how much government should do in an honest way.  Instead, we're talking about birth control and Mitt Romney's car elevator.  

 

 

Quote:
The point about campaign finance and lobbying rules totally misses the point. It is a focus on symptoms rather than the disease. The constant calls for "reform" of these things is just a futile and endless game of "whack-a-mole" in which you keep treating symptoms with ineffective bandages rather than going after the deeper problem.

 

I agree and disagree.  First, the reforms put in place don't work because people will always find ways around limits put on political speech, (be it actual speech or speech through donations).  We've seen that first hand with McCain-Feingold.  It actually made things worse (it was excellent at creating paperwork, however).  In that sense, you're spot on with the "whack-a-mole" comment.   But I don't see how one gets rid of "special interests."   There will always be people trying extract maximum gain from the law.  The only way I think we can fix that is to have strict lobbying regulation and full disclosure of campaign contributions with no individual limits.  The debate on how much government should do (and how much people should ask for) is never going to be over.  We simply have to manage and deal with it.  

 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #475 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

We don't disagree then.  You're just using the term differently than I. 

 

OK. Sounds right.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yes.  Though that would seem to be part of any democratic system.  It would be nice if we, as a nation, could have the debate about how much government should do in an honest way.  Instead, we're talking about birth control and Mitt Romney's car elevator.

 

Agreed.

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

First, the reforms put in place don't work because people will always find ways around limits put on political speech, (be it actual speech or speech through donations).  We've seen that first hand with McCain-Feingold.  It actually made things worse (it was excellent at creating paperwork, however).  In that sense, you're spot on with the "whack-a-mole" comment.

 

Right. And you got my point.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

But I don't see how one gets rid of "special interests."   There will always be people trying extract maximum gain from the law.  The only way I think we can fix that is to have strict lobbying regulation and full disclosure of campaign contributions with no individual limits.  The debate on how much government should do (and how much people should ask for) is never going to be over.  We simply have to manage and deal with it.

 

Well I agree that there will always be people lobbying for these things. So, it seems to me that the solution is to keep the state's power very strictly, clearly and explicitly limited. This way when person or group X comes in and starts lobbying for Y, we can more clearly look at what the state is limited to doing, ask does Y fit within that? If not...we;'r done. If it does, there might still be room for debate about whether Y should be done or not. But about 90% of the Y's would just be dismissed.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #476 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

OK. Sounds right.

 

 

 

Agreed.

 

 

Right. And you got my point.

 

 

Well I agree that there will always be people lobbying for these things. So, it seems to me that the solution is to keep the state's power very strictly, clearly and explicitly limited. This way when person or group X comes in and starts lobbying for Y, we can more clearly look at what the state is limited to doing, ask does Y fit within that? If not...we;'r done. If it does, there might still be room for debate about whether Y should be done or not. But about 90% of the Y's would just be dismissed.

 

On that last part:  I find it disturbing that despite having perhaps the most constitutionally-limited government on Earth, its role has expanded to unbelievable levels.  Our system was specifically designed to prevent government from the reaching the levels of influence and power that it has, and yet it continues to expand.  Part of this, I suppose, is the nature of democracy.  Benjamin Franklin said "when the people discover they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the Republic."    Certainly seems so.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #477 of 573

Government acts to keep prices higher.

 

 

Quote:
It works like this: In order to keep dairy farmers in businesses, the government agrees to buy milk and other products if the price gets too low. The current agriculture bill has a formula that means the government steps in if the price of milk were to drop by roughly half from its current national average of about $3.65 a gallon.
 
Problem is, the current bill expired last summer, and Congress had been unable to agree on a new one. Several protections for farmers have already expired, and several more are set to do so over the next few months. One of them is the dairy subsidy, which expires January 1.
 
But instead of leaving farmers entirely out in the cold, the law states that if a new bill isn't passed or the current one extended, the formula for calculating the price the government pays for dairy products reverts back to a 1949 statute. Under that formula, the government would be "forced" (quotes mine) to buy milk at twice today's price -- driving up the cost for everyone.

 

How beneficial this must be for the poor.

 

This is wonderful. See how the government fucks things up and hurts the poor?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #478 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Government acts to keep prices higher.

 

 

 

How beneficial this must be for the poor.

 

This is wonderful. See how the government fucks things up and hurts the poor?

 

Farm subsidies are complete crap to begin with.  And it's not just subsidies..it's regulation.  Farmers are actually told what to plant and what not to plant.  The are prevented by law from planting certain crops.  #LandOfTheFree 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #479 of 573
Thread Starter 

The TSA: keeping us safe from the deadly scourge of wheelchair-bound toddlers on their way to Disney World

 

The TSA, when you really think about it, is the embodiment of government.

 

To quote Pierre-Joseph Proudhon:

 

Quote:

To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so.

 

To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished.

 

It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored.

 

That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #480 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

The TSA: keeping us safe from the deadly scourge of wheelchair-bound toddlers on their way to Disney World

 

The TSA, when you really think about it, is the embodiment of government.

 

To quote Pierre-Joseph Proudhon:

 

Quote:

To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so.

 

To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished.

 

It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored.

 

That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.

Tell it like it is Jazzy! 1wink.gif

 

I guess if you can do it so can I.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Government is not the solution to our problem, it IS the problem