or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › I Don't Recognize My Country Anymore
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I Don't Recognize My Country Anymore - Page 7

post #241 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

This brings up an interesting point. Setting aside whether Europe can be categorized as a failed experiment, the "socialist" label deserves some exploration that may shed light on some of the differing views. Are there any national governments anywhere that hardcore Republicans would consider to be conservative, or are the rest of the world's democracies almost exclusively socialist by their standards?

That is a good question, though I don't know exactly who you mean by "hardcore Republicans."  The majority of 1st world democracies are closer to socialism than the United States.  In my opinion, this is one reason the United States has (or had) the economic power it does.  
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/the-crisis-has-yet-to-hit-the-wealthiest-greeks-a-866693.html

You might learn a little.


Sounds EXTREMELY American to me.


I don't see where you're going there.  I'm not defending Greece's tax policies, nor am I defending policies where the rich pay much less than the poor (or nothing at all).   What I'm saying is that confiscatory tax rates in general combined with massive social/other spending are a recipe for disaster.  This is a basic principle...money is best spent by the people, not the government.  Capital is more productive in the private sector.  

That doesn't mean we cast aside the safety net, all government, etc.  But it does mean accepting the truth, which is that government does not create resources...it consumes them.  This even applies to what I do as an educator.  I am a staunch supporter of public education. It has many benefits, including indirect economic benefits to society in "producing" productive members of society.  But the reality is that we directly consume resources.  We cost money.  That money comes from the taxpayer...from private society.  

What you seem to be arguing is that we should just collect everyone's earnings and then redistribute them.  And if that wasn't ridiculous enough, you're arguing this produces better economic results than other systems.  

Do you hire an accountant? An attorney? A teacher for your children who is not yourself? A hairdresser for your wife? A contractor who fixes your plumbing or a gardener who waters your lawn?

All of those things consume resources (your money). They don't create them.

But they perform a service. So does government.

All those things are done more efficiently because you choose not to do them yourself.

So is governance.

You get to choose who waters your lawn, you say?

We get to choose our government. Through our vote.

Does your wife get to choose who waters your lawn? If she wants someone different than the person you want, how do you settle the choice?
post #242 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

German's economy is not anywhere near as "socialist" as nations like France, Spain and the UK.  And Germany has taken a completely different road than tonton is suggesting.  They've implemented more conservative policies, which is why you're seeing those results.  

While it's difficult to compare the countries as to how socialist they are, Germany is still a more socialist country by Republican standards than the US. 

 

I would also disagree with you on why our economy is as strong as it is. From 1998 to 2005, chancellor Schröder of the Social Democratic Party laid the groundwork for the strength of the economy these days when he revamped the social security system and enforced strong budget cuts on all ends. For the most part, Merkel and her Christian Democratic Union stayed on this path of Schröders so-called "Agenda 2010" till now. She even gets a lot of criticism from members of her own party for watering down conservative policies and moving the party to the center of the political spectrum.

post #243 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

There will be plenty of time for analysis about the "why" of last night's election.  Clearly, I was wrong...as were several pundits I have come to respect for their expertise.  Say what you will, Karl Rove and Dick Morris know their jobs and have always delivered accurate results. But I'm sure we will discuss the reason for the outcome later.  

 

What I don't understand is the "how."  How is that we reelected a President who has failed in almost all measures of his job? How is that we reelected a former community organizer with a radical past?  How is it that people voted against an experienced governor and business leader with a sterling personal background, and voted for the guy that ran a small, angry and divisive campaign?  How is it that for the first time since FDR, we re-elected a President with more than 7.3% unemployment?  How is it that the American people ignored Benghazi?  How did we reelect the President when the top concern of voter was the economy and only 4 in 10 said we were on the right track with it?  How were the final national polls off by at least 5%?  How was the anecdotal evidence so wrong?  

 

I honestly don't recognize the country that voted for this man.  I don't recognize a country that voted for pessimism instead of optimism.  I don't recognize a country that voted for More Free Crap™, trillion dollar deficits, and higher taxes.  I don't recognize a country that voted for a man who went overseas and apologized for America...a man who was caught on an open mic essentially telling Vladimir Putin he'd give away the store on missile defense after his last election.  I don't recognize a country that reelected a man who promised skyrocketing energy prices and bankrupt coal companies...and delivered on his promise.  In the America I grew up in, this election wouldn't even have been close.  We had better judgement.  We demanded more of our leaders than "it could have been worse."  We didn't hate business, the rich and oil companies.  We didn't essentially take over auto companies and give them to the unions.  We wouldn't tolerate a President who called his opponent a "bullshitter" and whose campaign all but called his opponent a murderer.  

 

I don't know where this leaves us.  I do know that unlike Michelle Obama, this is the first time I'm not proud of my country.  

 

I'll start with the last first:  So, you were proud of your country when it re-elected George W. Bush? Because I sure felt I had reason to hang my head in shame on that fateful day… and by the end of that second term, I knew it without question.

 

Which brings us to the rest...

 

How, you ask? Well first, you make a lot of statements that are delivered as if they are unquestionably and factually correct. When people called you on some of them, you asked "how is it not true?" by pointing out two things that on their own are indeed uncontested; Obama was a community organizer, and we have had trillion dollar deficits. Without your original context, those seem pretty innocuous, and incontestable. That isn't true for your entire post, however.

 

Even how those two things were 'framed' or 'spun', moved them into what I will call "disingenuous' or even 'false narrative' territory...

 

Community Organizing: how has that come to be demonized as a bad thing? Churches and their bake sales, clean-up drives (where communities turn out and clean the trash up from the streets and parks, etc.), the energy that brought us our Neighborhood Watch program, Girl Scout Cookies… all "community organizing" activities, of one form or another. Social programs too, food banks, soup kitchens… the list is long, and much good has come from it. Hooray for community organizers!!

 

But, you applied the term "radical" as context in your presentation of Obama's participation in community organizing. Threw it in there based on some distant narrative someone created back in the last campaign… spun it. What we're questioning isn't whether it's true that Obama was a community organizer, it's how you represent him as "a former community organizer with a radical past". And instantly, from those words alone, what the rest of us hear is not you, but the chatter of the Breitbarts and Limbaughs, and the daily spin machine of Fox 'news' being repeated yet again, here… because that is highly specific rhetoric that emanates from a very singular, and extremely biased source.

 

We can see that. Can you? What that (and pretty much the rest of your missive) says to us is, you depend on that very singular source for most of your information and perspective. You embrace narratives CREATED by the likes of Fox 'news', and drape them out here as a litany of reasons to ask "how is it possible"?

 

Well, my friend, most of what I read in your post was derived from, and is a pretty good summary of, an ongoing, well-maintained false narrative about this President, and it's one I doubt you are willing to part with even if presented you with enough solid evidence showing it to be mostly false…..

 

I will try, however. I'll do just a little bit of presenting, and see how you respond to it. If it seems you are even somewhat open-minded or the least bit objective, I'll happily present more. What I'm not going to do is enter into a long-winded, "partisanship driven" debate with you. I'm only presenting a perspective...

 

A few factual corrections to start with: 

- "the first time since FDR, we re-elected a President with more than 7.3% unemployment"… Very few Presidents have been elected twice since FDR. Many have lost re-election with far lower unemployment than 7.3%. It isn't necessarily a direct correlation. You're wrong about the statistic too: Ronald Reagan was re-elected with a 7.5% unemployment rate, so even Republicans can ignore this particular measure in an election.


 

- "How were the final national polls off by at least 5%?" : Are you implying some kind of conspiracy at work? As for the final polls being 5% off, they weren't, actually. There were literally TWO outlier polls out of a dozen tracking polls that gave Romney any kind of serious lead. You mentioned both: Rasmussen and Gallup. First, Rasmussen is notoriously Republican leaning. Most aggregators adjust weightings from that poll by a couple of percent. Second, historically whenever Gallup results have moved into outlier territory as they did here, they have a poor record of accuracy. And lastly, any National polls giving Romney a 5% lead were not the final ones at all, but were at least a week out from election day. The FINAL polls from Rasmussen showed it either dead even, or at most 1% in Romney's favor. Gallup had pulled back to a tie. At that point however, it's foolish to depend more on national polling than on state polling, which give a far more accurate picture of what expectations should be. 


 

- "a country that voted for More Free Crap™" : This is one of those false narratives that is heavily promoted by the aforementioned talking heads… first of all, it's a pretty insulting assertion that THIS is the reason anyone voted for Obama. I challenge you to present a single "Free Crap" item that people 'voted for'? And which of those that might be spun as "free crap" are actually not meaningful or worthy of us as a society, and instead are worthy of this campaign to divide us into two camps over? Are we saying, "food assistance" is part of that? We shouldn't assist people who fall into poverty for whatever reason (and believe me, most of those people really REALLY don't want to be there, and would love a way out of that hole), and just let them starve, or…? Are you aware that food assistance is just that, "assistance" and BARELY enough to subsist on…?  I hear about this "More Free Crap" meme, but no one gives me enough specifics to embrace… it's a generalized concept with little context in real and tangible terms. Like, what is this "Free Crap" we are 'giving away' exactly? And why? And what will we save dollar-wise if we stop, and what harm comes of not helping where we can?

 

 

When I ask "How?" I ask how is it possible that anyone can honestly conclude that Obama was re-elected because "our country voted for More Free Crap".

 

- Trillion dollar deficits: Yep. It's true. Beginning with the one Obama was handed. Bush's last budget tripled the deficit to $1.2 trillion, and along with that, he handed over an economy in free fall, with unemployment skyrocketing (7.3%, and losing 850k jobs/month… it bottomed out 10 months later at 10%), a GDP running at MINUS 9% growth, and financial and housing sectors on the verge of meltdown. Most important to all this: due to the full-on recession and the Bush tax cuts, our tax revenues collected were down to only 14% of GDP (but the new budget was well over 20% of GDP).

 

That's a necessary start-point snapshot. Why? Because it speaks to the other narratives which imply or state directly that Obama is somehow responsible for creating these trillion dollar deficits and "has failed in almost all measures of his job."

 

 


 

I'll begin with a couple of chart-rich PDFs to refer you to, to establish a picture of our economic progress over the past four years:
 

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/Documents/20120229_EssentialEcon.PDF

 

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/Documents/20120502_EconomicGrowth.pdf

 

I will not argue this point: We have a LOT of work left to do to recover from this mess. But to say this President has failed in all measures of his job (economy being one of those), when it is clear he presided over and has helped to turn around one of the most serious train wrecks of a crisis in our history, is simply ignoring the facts.

 

It is commonly accepted now that what we experienced in 2008 was a systemic crisis, not a 'simple recession'. That means we cannot expect a one-term recovery, and we can't even expect rapid recovery from this point. What we've gotten however, is actually better than we could have normally expected, and that's in part due to good stewardship. No President could have achieved more than ours did, given the circumstances. 

 

The snapshot in late 2012 shows an economy moving on the path of recovery. A stock market that doubled its value during Obama's first term. All the fundamentals moving into positive territory. Challenges abound still, but ignoring this and calling him a failure is disingenuous at best. DIshonest at worst.

 

I also present this list, to counterbalance the "abject failure" meme:

http://obamaachievements.org/ 

And also:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_2012/features/obamas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php

 

Yes, those both lean toward praising this President, as opposed to leaning toward criticizing him, but it helps to see a fuller picture using both sides of the argument.

 

The last thing I'll touch on is this question:  "How is it that the American people ignored Benghazi?"

 

The truth is, friend, most of us didn't ignore it… really, COULDN'T ignore Benghazi. Most of us arrived at a rational conclusion, based on the information at hand. We just didn't accept the conclusions or the cries of conspiracy emanating from "Fox 'news' and the same scandal-creating voices that advance all the other memes and narratives that are threaded throughout your post.

 

It's troubling that so many, for whatever reason, are so easily led down that path of division, fear and disillusionment. Following the cries of Scandal! and 'More Free Stuff"! And "half of us give and other half TAKE", constantly dividing, and forever conquering.

 

Well, I don't live on anyone else's dime. And I only want better for the poor and disenfranchised. As do most of them! It's a shame that the likes of Fox always dig up the worst exceptions and examples of our society (and yes, there are some of those, no doubt!), and then parade them around as the "norm", when it really isn't so… but it divides us further. SOmetimes, I think that's their entire agenda. To keep us divided and at odds with each other.

 

Anyway, I hope something here gives you pause, offers an alternative view. I'm not saying that I'm 100% right and you're 100% wrong… just showing what I know… all the best, and peace to you. 

post #244 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


Do you hire an accountant? An attorney? A teacher for your children who is not yourself? A hairdresser for your wife? A contractor who fixes your plumbing or a gardener who waters your lawn?
All of those things consume resources (your money). They don't create them.
But they perform a service. So does government.
All those things are done more efficiently because you choose not to do them yourself.
So is governance.
You get to choose who waters your lawn, you say?
We get to choose our government. Through our vote.
Does your wife get to choose who waters your lawn? If she wants someone different than the person you want, how do you settle the choice?

 

And, yet, with those first examples, people have choices. Account sucks? Go find another. Lawyer sucks? Go find another? Teacher sucks? Oh...oops...bad example (for you). And so on.

 

Those choices can be made immediately. Not 2 or 4 years from now. Not in way that if 51% of the people decide what plumber I should use and I don't like it, I'm stuck with it.

 

What's wore: If my wife goes to a salon to get her hair and nails done and likes how they do her hair but now how they do her nails she can chose to go to different places for each of those services.

 

This bullshit about choice through the vote is just that: Bullshit. Voting is so far disconnected from those detailed decision and services as to be nearly meaningless.


Edited by MJ1970 - 11/16/12 at 7:26am

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 #245 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


Do you hire an accountant? An attorney? A teacher for your children who is not yourself? A hairdresser for your wife? A contractor who fixes your plumbing or a gardener who waters your lawn?
All of those things consume resources (your money). They don't create them.
But they perform a service. So does government.
All those things are done more efficiently because you choose not to do them yourself.
So is governance.
You get to choose who waters your lawn, you say?
We get to choose our government. Through our vote.
Does your wife get to choose who waters your lawn? If she wants someone different than the person you want, how do you settle the choice?

 

And, yet, with those first examples, people have choices. Account sucks? Go find another. Lawyer sucks? Go find another? Teacher sucks? Oh...oops...bad example (for you). And so on.

 

This bullshit about choice through the vote is just that: Bullshit. Voting is so far disconnected from those detailed decision and services as to be nearly meaningless.

Um... you missed the part about your wife wanting a different gardener.

post #246 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

This bullshit about choice through the vote is just that: Bullshit. Voting is so far disconnected from those detailed decision and services as to be nearly meaningless.

 

Ah, another libertarian that is uncomfortable with the idea of democratic rule by majority. 

post #247 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Um... you missed the part about your wife wanting a different gardener.

 

No, I didn't miss it at all. What about it? How is that remotely analogous to what you're saying the government of a country is like?

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 #248 of 455
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


Do you hire an accountant? An attorney? A teacher for your children who is not yourself? A hairdresser for your wife? A contractor who fixes your plumbing or a gardener who waters your lawn?
All of those things consume resources (your money). They don't create them.
But they perform a service. So does government.
All those things are done more efficiently because you choose not to do them yourself.
So is governance.
You get to choose who waters your lawn, you say?
We get to choose our government. Through our vote.
Does your wife get to choose who waters your lawn? If she wants someone different than the person you want, how do you settle the choice?

 

There are a lot of ways to interpret that little diatribe of yours.  I assume you are arguing for a greater role of government in terms of what we "hire" it to do for us. Essentially, you're parroting the typical Obama/Progressivist/Collectivist line of "we do certain things better together."    On its own, this statement is probably accurate.  There are certain things that, in my opinion, we government should be doing.  The question is "what things?"  That's where we completely disagree.  Yes, government should fund infrastructure, defense, scientific research, education and pass laws to ensure basic order and safety.  But government should not "take care" of people simply because they have not.  Now, it's fine if you disagree...but realize that the U.S. was not founded on the principles which you espouse.  

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 #249 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by foregoneconclusion View Post

 

Ah, another libertarian that is uncomfortable with the idea of democratic rule by majority. 

 

The U.S. was intended to be a constitutional republic, which is very different from a direct democracy. The founders made quite clear their disdain for the "tyranny of the majority".

 

Do you see no problem with 51% of the people using government to violently force the other 49% to do what they want?

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 #250 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by foregoneconclusion View Post

 

Ah, another libertarian that is uncomfortable with the idea of democratic rule by majority. 

 

Yeah. Exactly.

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 #251 of 455

Apparently, there was voter suppression against the pro-Romney folk in this election.

 

According to reports I've seen, the votes on Kolob were never counted.*

 

*Not my quote, I just found it hilarious.

post #252 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Apparently, there was voter suppression against the pro-Romney folk in this election.

 

According to reports I've seen, the votes on Kolob were never counted.*

 

*Not my quote, I just found it hilarious.

 

Yes, attacks on religion are hilarious, aren't they?

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 #253 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by foregoneconclusion View Post

 

Ah, another libertarian that is uncomfortable with the idea of democratic rule by majority. 

 

The U.S. was intended to be a constitutional republic, which is very different from a direct democracy. The founders made quite clear their disdain for the "tyranny of the majority".

 

Do you see no problem with 51% of the people using government to violently force the other 49% to do what they want?


I see outrage in the fact that 50% of your household chooses the gardener. OUTRAGE, I tell you! lol.gif

post #254 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

And, yet, with those first examples, people have choices. Account sucks? Go find another. Lawyer sucks? Go find another? Teacher sucks? Oh...oops...bad example (for you). And so on.

You can still move your kid to another school or, if you are financially well, put your kid in private school. Same goes for things like health insurance. Everyone is able to obtain the statuary health insurance, but you can also opt for the more expensive private health insurance. There's really no difference in choice, even with government in play.

post #255 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


I see outrage in the fact that 50% of your household chooses the gardener. OUTRAGE, I tell you! lol.gif

 

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 #256 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Apparently, there was voter suppression against the pro-Romney folk in this election.

 

According to reports I've seen, the votes on Kolob were never counted.*

 

*Not my quote, I just found it hilarious.

 

Yes, attacks on religion are hilarious, aren't they?


When said religion is inherently ridiculous, it's often hard not to share the smile.

post #257 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by alex101 View Post

You can still move your kid to another school or, if you are financially well, put your kid in private school...

 

Thanks for pointing out how the government school system discriminates against and limits real educational choices for the poor and middle class.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by alex101 View Post

There's really no difference in choice, even with government in play.

 

Of course there is. Don't be obtuse.

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 #258 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Thanks for pointing out how the government school system discriminates against and limits real educational choices for the poor and middle class.

How is it different from the US? As I understand, you have public schools and expensive private schools as well. In contrast to the US, though, teachers in public schools in Germany are officials of the state and receive a comparatively high salary. See also: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jack-jennings/teacher-pay-us-ranks-22nd_b_940814.html

 

While a high salary does not automatically mean a higher level of education, it does show how we value our public education system.

post #259 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

 

The U.S. was intended to be a constitutional republic, which is very different from a direct democracy. The founders made quite clear their disdain for the "tyranny of the majority".

 

Do you see no problem with 51% of the people using government to violently force the other 49% to do what they want?

 

The founding fathers absolutely rejected monarchy, i.e. feudalism, as the choice for governing the country. If you reject the idea of rule by majority, then you're backsliding into the feudal mindset, where "individual choice" quickly transforms into "individual rule".

post #260 of 455

And there you go. Society is a cartoon to these simplistic people.

 

Imagine if Oliver is going to die if George doesn't give him some help. And George still refuses, not because he can't help (which I would understand) but because he resents being asked to help. Then you damn well bet I'd punch George in the face. George is a ****.

 

Jazzy, are you going to be a **** just because you don't want to help people because the government is asking you (whether it's under force or not is irrelevant) to help?

 

Don't be a ****. Help.

 

**** --> See-You-Next-Tuesday

post #261 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by alex101 View Post

How is it different from the US? As I understand, you have public schools and expensive private schools as well. In contrast to the US, though, teachers in public schools in Germany are officials of the state and receive a comparatively high salary. See also: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jack-jennings/teacher-pay-us-ranks-22nd_b_940814.html

 

While a high salary does not automatically mean a higher level of education, it does show the value of our public education system.

 

Perhaps our signals got crossed. I was addressing another poster's comparison of choosing something like an account, lawyer or plumber with choosing a teacher or school.

 

In the first three examples you have a multitude of choices (though they too have been unnecessarily limited by government) where with (government) schooling the choices are far more limited. They are also especially limited for the poor and middle class.

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 #262 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

(whether it's under force or not is irrelevant)

 

Of course it's not. That's just a lie you tell yourself to overcome the immorality of what you propose.

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 #263 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by foregoneconclusion View Post

If you reject the idea of rule by majority, then you're backsliding into the feudal mindset, where "individual choice" quickly transforms into "individual rule".

 

Oh delightful. We have someone new to offer up fallacies.

 

1rolleyes.gif

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 #264 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by foregoneconclusion View Post

Ah, another libertarian that is uncomfortable with the idea of democratic rule by majority. 

The U.S. was intended to be a constitutional republic, which is very different from a direct democracy. The founders made quite clear their disdain for the "tyranny of the majority".

Do you see no problem with 51% of the people using government to violently force the other 49% to do what they want?

Violently?
post #265 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by alex101 View Post

How is it different from the US? As I understand, you have public schools and expensive private schools as well. In contrast to the US, though, teachers in public schools in Germany are officials of the state and receive a comparatively high salary. See also: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jack-jennings/teacher-pay-us-ranks-22nd_b_940814.html

 

While a high salary does not automatically mean a higher level of education, it does show the value of our public education system.

 

Perhaps our signals got crossed. I was addressing another poster's comparison of choosing something like an account, lawyer or plumber with choosing a teacher or school.

 

In the first three examples you have a multitude of choices (though they too have been unnecessarily limited by government) where with (government) schooling the choices are far more limited. They are also especially limited for the poor and middle class.

 

 

Sure, without regulation, the people (who know nothing about teachers) can look in the yellow pages, like the name of the daycare provider (Sunny Day Daycare) and hire him. Unfortunately for your toddler, Mr. Day just moved into town from Miami, where he raped and murdered three little children. You go to the authorities, and... oops... Mr. Day is no longer in town. You want to know where he went, but... oops... the Government doesn't provide that kind of service.

 

Yeah. Regulation is bad bad BAD, I tell you.

post #266 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by foregoneconclusion View Post

 

The founding fathers absolutely rejected monarchy, i.e. feudalism, as the choice for governing the country. If you reject the idea of rule by majority, then you're backsliding into the feudal mindset, where "individual choice" quickly transforms into "individual rule".

 

 

"The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society."
-- Thomas Jefferson
 
"The fundamental article of my political creed is that despotism, or unlimited sovereignty, or absolute power, is the same in a majority of a popular assembly, an aristocratic council, an oligarchical junto, and a single emperor."
-- John Adams, Letter to Thomas Jefferson [November 13, 1815]

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 #267 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Sure, without regulation, the people (who know nothing about teachers) can look in the yellow pages, like the name of the daycare provider (Sunny Day Daycare) and hire him. Unfortunately for your toddler, Mr. Day just moved into town from Miami, where he raped and murdered three little children. You go to the authorities, and... oops... Mr. Day is no longer in town. You want to know where he went, but... oops... the Government doesn't provide that kind of service.

 

Yeah. Regulation is bad bad BAD, I tell you.

 

Quit pretending that there aren't ways to deal with such things outside of government regulation. Is your imagination really that limited?

 

Tonton, I'm very surprised by this new you. I've always thought you smarter than this.

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 #268 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Violently?

 

Yes. That's what the State is. The State is organized violence and force. That we vote for how it's used doesn't change that fundamental fact.

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 #269 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And there you go. Society is a cartoon to these simplistic people.

 

Imagine if Oliver is going to die if George doesn't give him some help. And George still refuses, not because he can't help (which I would understand) but because he resents being asked to help. Then you damn well bet I'd punch George in the face. George is a ****.

 

Jazzy, are you going to be a **** just because you don't want to help people because the government is asking you (whether it's under force or not is irrelevant) to help?

 

Don't be a ****. Help.

 

**** --> See-You-Next-Tuesday

 

You would personally initiate violence against someone else, take their money and property, and give it to another? And you believe this is moral and just?

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 #270 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Oh delightful. We have someone new to offer up fallacies.

 

1rolleyes.gif

 

Please identify the "fallacy". Is it a "fallacy" that the founding fathers rejected monarchy and feudalism? Or is it a "fallacy" that non-democratic governments in human history tend to be feudal?  

post #271 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


Violently?

 

How else would the State impose its will on the people?

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 #272 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by foregoneconclusion View Post

 

Please identify the "fallacy". Is it a "fallacy" that the founding fathers rejected monarchy and feudalism? Or is it a "fallacy" that non-democratic governments in human history tend to be feudal?  

 

The fallacy (non sequitur) is that moving away from democratic-rule necessitates a move toward feudalism.

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 #273 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Yes. That's what the State is. The State is organized violence and force. That we vote for how it's used doesn't change that fundamental fact.

 

Another fundamental fact that is that you can't eliminate "The State" by eliminating popular vote. You just usher in a non-democratic form of "The State".

post #274 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by foregoneconclusion View Post

 

Please identify the "fallacy". Is it a "fallacy" that the founding fathers rejected monarchy and feudalism? Or is it a "fallacy" that non-democratic governments in human history tend to be feudal?  

 

The fallacy you are promoting is that the founders intended the U.S. to be a direct democracy.

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 #275 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by foregoneconclusion View Post

Another fundamental fact that is that you can't eliminate "The State" by eliminating popular vote. You just usher in a non-democratic form of "The State".

 

Another non sequitur?

 

You're on a role.

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 #276 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

The fallacy (non sequitur) is that moving away from democratic-rule necessitates a move toward feudalism.

 

What other choices are there besides feudalism? Tribalism? That's really just an early stage of feudalism. The history of mankind has proven that over and over.

post #277 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by foregoneconclusion View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Oh delightful. We have someone new to offer up fallacies.

1rolleyes.gif

Please identify the "fallacy". Is it a "fallacy" that the founding fathers rejected monarchy and feudalism? Or is it a "fallacy" that non-democratic governments in human history tend to be feudal?  

MJ1970 will destroy all your arguments with devastating ripostes such as "delightful" and "how cute". You cannot prevail in the face of such firepower. Give up immediately.
post #278 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

 

The fallacy you are promoting is that the founders intended the U.S. to be a direct democracy.

 

I never said it was a direct democracy. I said that if you reject the basic idea of rule by majority, then you're backsliding into the feudal mindset of rule by minority.

post #279 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by foregoneconclusion View Post

 

I never said it was a direct democracy. I said that if you reject the basic idea of rule by majority, then you're backsliding into the feudal mindset of rule by minority.

 

I reject the false dilemma that rule by majority and rule by minority are the only two options. So did the founders of my country.

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 #280 of 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


MJ1970 will destroy all your arguments with devastating ripostes such as "delightful" and "how cute". You cannot prevail in the face of such firepower. Give up immediately.

 

muppetry, I've thought of you as one of the more moderate, thoughtful posters since you started frequenting PO. This is a little beneath you, don't you think?

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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › I Don't Recognize My Country Anymore