The Last Thing We Need is a Great Leader by AnthonyT

Any Government capable of giving you all that you want, is also capable of taking all that you have.

When it comes to Government, a little goes a damn long way, don'tcha know ?

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 4, 2008 7:31 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Sometimes I agree with Freddy (except when hes calling me a goddamned racist...then hes just an assclown.)

But here hes right. We don't need government to give us everything (or anything). We need to have the balls to do it ourselves. For fucks sake people, we are goddamn Americans. We carved a nation out of nothing, walked on the moon, fought 2 world wars (and won), beat back the horrors of National Socialism, taught the world about democracy, and carried the torch of self-determination.

Yes, we've made mistakes. Yes, its not as simple as I've made it out to be above, nor as pretty. But FUCK THAT SHIT.

We are NOT fattened ticks. We don't need government to 'take care of us".

What we NEED to do is remember. Remember who and what we are. Who and what our fathers and forefathers fought and died for.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 4, 2008 7:39 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

You're all way, way smarter than me, and right, too. We don't need government to take care of us - except when they spy on us for our own good, of course - that's what corporations are for. After all, I'm sure ExxonMobil and GlaxoSmithKline and Beatrice Holding Company have our best interests at heart and would never, ever do anything illegal, or even mildly unethical, or simply unkind.

***************************************************************
Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 4, 2008 7:44 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

I can agree with some of what Penn says, but the bit about not wanting a President that's smarter than me? Why the fuck wouldn't I want that? Why is there something seen in this country as inherently wrong with the idea that the President of the United States should be the smartest guy in any room he's in? Why is it a BAD idea to have an intelligent person in the White House?

We've tried doing it the other way for the last eight years. How's that workin' out for ya? We have a below-average student with around a 130 IQ (hardly MENSA material), who knows he's not very bright, but refuses to listen to anyone else who is both smarter AND more knowledgable about the particular issues they're addressing.

What I don't want is four more years of another "Me Too" NeoCon jerkoff. The last eight have very nearly ruined our nation.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 4, 2008 10:27 AM

You mean normally I'm not ?
Hey, stop it, I might get misty on ya.

It's funny though, what you said there, that's prettymuch my take on it too - we seem to have forgotten who the hell we are, or been taught to forget it by those who would rather we do so.

Fuck em, it's high time we reminded the powers that be that WE are the bosses, and they are the employees - but gettin that done ain't exactly easy since it requires the breaking of laws that never shoulda been passed in the first place.

Comes a time when respect for an idiotic and unconstitutional law is just plain cowardice.

"Gee, I never been in trouble with the Law before...."
Jayne, Sarcastic, hehe

If we "refuse to play ball" en-masse, we can, and WILL win the day, just like we did with prohibition.

"If the mudders are together on a thing, there's too many of us..."

They can't put us ALL in slam, who would fill their pockets then, ehe ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 4, 2008 10:40 AM

EMBERS

you haven't noticed that when Bush/Cheney deregulated, the corporations and speculators moved in and exploited it?

The Enron scandal was thanks to the current administration,

the predatory lending by deregulated banks led to the current housing crisis and the bail outs of the mortgage companies,

and the high gas prices are a direct result of deregulation in oil/petroleum trading....

When you put the foxes in charge of the chicken coop then you can't be surprised that the chickens will suffer.

We are closer to a complete economic collapse than we have been since the great depression:
most people in this country are one paycheck or one severe illness/accident from homelessness.
most people are living on credit which they have no hope of paying off...
unemployment is rising, the dollar is getting weaker...
and you figure that everything is cool and we don't need any leadership?

*eyeroll*

New Firefly fans should check this out: http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=2&t=15816

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 4, 2008 10:45 AM

SIMONWHO

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
But here hes right. We don't need government to give us everything (or anything). We need to have the balls to do it ourselves. For fucks sake people, we are goddamn Americans. We carved a nation out of nothing, walked on the moon, fought 2 world wars (and won), beat back the horrors of National Socialism, taught the world about democracy, and carried the torch of self-determination.

I don't know what's funnier, that you posted that or that you believe it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 4, 2008 10:48 AM

the logic escapes me

when the president is stupid, or less smart than other potential presidents, taht just means he's that much more easily used, by his own party, his lobbyists, his donors.

the president is supposed to be a check and a balance on ohter branches, he is supposed to bring wisdom and a certain independance to the table. If he can't do that, then we get what bush did to every agency, to our budget, to our cities, to our image abroad...etc. etc. etc.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 4, 2008 10:52 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:

I don't know what's funnier, that you posted that or that you believe it.

You deny elements of truth in the above, Simon?

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 4, 2008 11:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
You deny elements of truth in the above, Simon?

It's all true, except the "American's did it alone" part.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 4, 2008 11:56 AM

SIMONWHO

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:

I don't know what's funnier, that you posted that or that you believe it.
You deny elements of truth in the above, Simon?

Chrisisall

Elements of truth, yes. But I think the native Americans would a) tell him to fuck off for saying the country was nothing before our mutual ancestors turned up and b) tell him to fuck off again for ignoring their help when the settlers were literally starving then c) tell him to fuck right off for slaughtering them like bison.

There's similar issues with the other points but talking about being an American as though it's the same as being an X-Man is just mad. You're not the freest nation on earth, nor the most democratic and even in the richest nations, people need some help. Even multi-millionaires like Penn Gillette.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 4, 2008 12:18 PM

I believe the aspect was more about attitude than actual historical focus.

When you confront an American with an impossible task, they'll damn well try, most of em, and some of em have even succeeded over the years.

We're crazy like that - and so, our attitude towards this mess should be "We can fix this" instead of "We're all dooooomed!", you know ?

"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty!"

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 4, 2008 12:37 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello all,

I think the point that Jillette was making is a point missed by some of you.

When you boil down the presidency to what it was intended to be, you realize it doesn't take a brilliant man to do the job. It's rather simple, really. What requires brains (and charisma), is the abuse of power with the people's consent.

What we DO need in the oval office is someone with integrity. That's what is missing. Not brains. Not charisma. Simple common sense and integrity would fill the post to the utmost.

So no, I don't want my President to be the smartest guy in the room. I want him to be honest and capable of utilizing simple logic. There are probably any number of old hick farmers in the stix who could do the job as it was designed.

-=-=-=-=-

As an aside, I think it's important to remember that as proud as we are in the US for carving out the frontier and making a nation of it, the whole of Europe and Asia did not spring forth from the heavens fully-formed. They all conquered their frontiers long ago, and some of them even had Democracy before we did. Generations of great men and heroes rose and fell long before the United States was even a glimmer in anyone's eyes. We came from Europe and Asia, and so we are the evolution of all that they created across the sea. If we are mighty, it is because we stand upon the shoulders of the giants who came before us. Giants from the Old World.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 4, 2008 12:43 PM

SIMONWHO

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I believe the aspect was more about attitude than actual historical focus.

When you confront an American with an impossible task, they'll damn well try, most of em, and some of em have even succeeded over the years.

We're crazy like that - and so, our attitude towards this mess should be "We can fix this" instead of "We're all dooooomed!", you know ?

"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty!"

-F

Yes, except dealing with big problems requires leadership. Indeed most of the achievements mentioned above had great leaders pushing them on (Roosevelt, Kennedy, Ike) rather than just the government just shrugging and saying "You're on your own." Things like global warming require real leadership and unfortunately true cynics like Jillette (who I love as a magician) simply will never get that.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 4, 2008 6:28 PM

Yes, a sense of integrity, a sense of what's right,

and I want a smart President who's sense of what is right is based on weighing information, is based on an understanding and appreciation of the Constitution, not on a gut wisdom...not on a rigid moral system that may be faulty or outdated, biased and schizophrenic.

I get it, smart Presidents can have agendas that are aimed at undermining the Constitution and controlling people. Stupid Presidents can be controlled by the very same types of people, but in those situations, we can't even hold any person who is actually RESPONSIBLE for these horrendous decisions responsible, because they hae a puppet to take the fall instead.

....

on edit, I know just how likely it is that we would hold anybody responsible, not very.

....

by the way, Obama has talked about his campaign, saying,

"It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign -- that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. It's about America. I have just become a symbol."

Now, either that's humble, or that's smart, or both, but it goes to the core of my annoyance with the notion that if we want a smart guy to represent us its because we want to be taken care of.

We created government to deal with things that are bigger than the individual. Ours is a representative government. This is how we make decisions in Washington, not how we pass the buck to somebody else to take care of us.

I hate that meme that government is about babysitting. every time we want a President to look after the interests that we as a nation seem to care about, we get these silly comments about "why do we need a daddy government" "aren't we capable of taking care of ourselves"...etc. We are, in theory, if we involve ourselves in the democratic process, if we actually use our government to collectively do with our nation what we choose to do with it.

That's not our government looking after us, that's us making a small effort in looking after our government. Sure, it's not enough, sadly.

We need to put pressure on the officials we elect, we need to vote in primaries, we need to put money into causes and organizations that can effectively illuminate issues we care about...etc. but voting into office a competent person who reflects our values, is not supposed to be passing the buck, is not supposed to be electing a savior.

I'd wager most Obama supporters feel the way that I do, that voting our values is taking a small part of the responsibility for this nation.

We are casting our vote for a change in the tone that our nation has spoken with for the last 8 years. That alone isn't enough to keep a representative democracy a democracy maybe, but none of us are trying to welcome "Emperor Obama" to preside over us in his infinite Omniscience.

When we vote in a President we are delegating our duties to him. I would think we'd want a competent, smart, individidual, and yes, one with integrity as well. It's the United States of America we're talking about here. Is it really unreasonable to expect all of the above from our elected official?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 4, 2008 6:53 PM

KWICKO

This is NOT the sign of a great leader:

[Excerpted from John McCain's convention speech tonight]

Quote:

I fight to restore the pride and principles of our party. We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change us. We lost -- we lost the trust of the American people when some Republicans gave in to the temptations of corruption. [including John McCain] We lost their trust when rather than reform government, both parties made it bigger. [And McCain is included in that group, too.]

We lost their trust when instead of freeing ourselves from a dangerous dependence on foreign oil, both parties and Senator Obama [and Senator McCain] passed another corporate welfare bill for oil companies. We lost their trust when we valued our power over our principles.

We're going to change that. [but not any time soon...]

In other words, "I know we screwed up, and I was a vocal supporter of those screwups, and fought hard for them, and we utterly screwed things up - but if you elect me, I'll try to change now. I haven't changed in the past 30 years, but now I think I can."

He doesn't get that he's had the chance to BE a leader all along, and has chosen NOT TO BE one, but to go along with whatever the others wanted to do, knowing full well it was absolutely not in our best interests, but rather in HIS best interests.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 4, 2008 8:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I can agree with some of what Penn says, but the bit about not wanting a President that's smarter than me? Why the fuck wouldn't I want that? Why is there something seen in this country as inherently wrong with the idea that the President of the United States should be the smartest guy in any room he's in? Why is it a BAD idea to have an intelligent person in the White House?

I hear ya, but I think you're taking him a might too literally. There's more than a little tongue in his cheek, but it's all to make a point. What we don't want is the expectation that great leadership, or great government in general, will solve all our problems. He's trying to warn against the common political presumption that government can and should make everything 'all better'.

Government is really only good at solving a small minority of our problems and needs to stay the hell out of the way concerning the rest of them. That doesn't take a lot of smarts, and it doesn't take great leadership. I just takes an honest understanding of the limitations of government and a respect for the freedom of the population.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 2:56 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
It just takes an honest understanding of the limitations of government and a respect for the freedom of the population.

*Waves to fellow utopian dreamer*

isall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 3:01 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
talking about being an American as though it's the same as being an X-Man is just mad.

*Various mutant-related jokes run rampant through his mind, yet he resists the temptation*

I've grownisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 3:10 AM

KWICKO

Sarge:

I get it. And I agree. But I think it takes a pretty smart person AND a great leader to know when to stay the hell out of the way.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 8:52 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

The people who want to minimize government to its least effective level would rather put their trust in corporations and guns.

Now THAT'S the way to solve those large national problems !

***************************************************************
Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 9:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The people who want to minimize government to its least effective level would rather put their trust in corporations and guns.

Is that your signature line?

You keep asserting that, and it's bullshit. It's not a choice between one or the other.

False dichotomy. -5pts

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 10:00 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

You know SergeantX

I remember a thread about children who were isolated and killed by their 'loving' parents. And SignyM kept asking - since the family didn't do it, and the neighbors didn't do it, and the church didn't do it, and the 'community' didn't do it - WHO has the authority to step in and protect the children, if not the government ?

Your answer, CTS's answer, Frem's answer - deep, deep silence.

Your answer to problems like lead in toys, toxins in heparin, salmonella in peppers, HepC in syringes, PCB's in lakes, mercury in fish, and children dying under the care of parents - is silence.

Anything rather than admit maybe government has a useful role.

So tell me, and everyone else - HOW will these problems be solved without government ? Without laws that call them problems ? Without government-funded research to uncover those problems ?

Or will your answer again be deep, deep silence ?

***************************************************************
Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 10:13 AM

Sigh...

We been down this road so many times. Ok, once more, for old times sake. Here's why you're wrong:

You're trying to pretend that government is the only thing preventing corporations from running amok. But reality doesn't support that claim. In point of fact, government is, at best, a net neutral toward corporate abuses - at worst, it facilitates them. Government provides the foundation of corporate power. Without special legal structures, created and maintained by government, corporations wouldn't even exist. Government's not protecting us from corporations as much as it's handing us to them on a platter.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 10:16 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Nice dodge on the questions. And still no answer.

I hope you don't mind if I interpret your lack of answers as a lack of solutions.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 10:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Sigh...

We been down this road so many times. Ok, once more, for old times sake. Here's why you're wrong:

You're trying to pretend that government is the only thing preventing corporations from running amok. But reality doesn't support that claim. In point of fact, government is, at best, a net neutral toward corporate abuses - at worst, it facilitates them. Government provides the foundation of corporate power. Without special legal structures, created and maintained by government, corporations wouldn't even exist. Government's not protecting us from corporations as much as it's handing us to them on a platter.

Evidence doesn't support the idea that deregulated markets keep corporations in line. Quite the opposite in fact.

Just because your government is a corporate tool, doesn't mean all governments have to be.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 10:53 AM

MALBADINLATIN

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Any Government capable of giving you all that you want, is also capable of taking all that you have.

I think Goldwater's best was "I think every good Christian should kick Falwell in the ass". But then of course dick head Ronald Reagan let the Moral Majority into spheres of influence under the banner of Family Values and we've been F**ked ever since.

Goldie was the last Fiscal Conservative...a little rough on equal rights but just because he didn't believe government and laws would solve a social ill like racism. A little hawkish because he wanted to "make North Vietnam into a mud puddle" to win the war. But that was how they won wars in his day, completely, without asking American citizens for thier approval. They don't make em' like that anymore, that's for sure.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 11:09 AM

How come every time I bother with an in-depth reply, you suddenly find other things to do, and when the issue comes up again, you falsely assert that I have remained silent on the topic ?

Unions are an effective bulwark against corporate abuses without a Government lending it's support legally, materially, and militarily, to those corporations - effectively kneecapping the unions every time they try to stand up.

I've posted a historical list of that behavior no less than seven times on this board, and I know damn well you've at least skimmed it, and let's be clear, without the ability to confront and defeat both the forces of the corporations, AND the entire combined might of the US Armed Forces on top it, the unions cannot currently be an effective bulwark, besides which if they WERE able to do that, what's to stop them from simply taking over and trying to run things themselves.

I don't suggest this is a good idea mind you, just pointing out that it damn well would occur to those folks if they had the force to do it.

Consumer unions ain't a bad idea either in retrospect to a companies ill behavior or shoddy/dangerous products, but once again you have the gov coming down universally and ultimately on the corporate side against them, mostly due to corporate personhood, which then puts us in the same backed up situation as the labor unions.

If you removed government from the equation, thus too would go the government protection, up to and specifically including the military, which would even the odds significantly towards a check and balance.

And yeah, the thought pops up "so what if the corp hires Blackwater ?" - I counter with how the hell are they going to pay them when they are no longer making any money due to massive boycotts of their products and no goverment bailout money, and treating your customers as an enemy is about the best way to blow your profit margin there is, just ask the RIAA and related shitheads about that.

My answer is the same as it's always been, remove government protection, physical and financial, from the equation and let the unions perform the function they were expressly created for.

As for the issue of abusive families, again, my answer is the same as it ever was, repeatedly, in spite of your false assertions to the contrary.

Severing the chains of government will not, can not, sever the bonds between us as people, if anything it would strengthen them because people could turn to their fellow man without concern for being sued, arrested, or hunted by the taxman - and a strong community is the first line of defense against that particular problem in the first place, something that has been weakened by governments attempt to sever the bonds between us as people in order to make us more dependant on it.

Of course, with you I am wasting my breath, cause time and time again I have addressed this issue, and time and time again you have lied through your teeth and stated otherwise.

Maybe if you STARTED discussions from an honest statement, they wouldn't begin from such a hostile standpoint, did you ever think of that ?

Big daddy government is a disease masquerading as it's own cure.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 11:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Nice dodge on the questions. And still no answer.

I hope you don't mind if I interpret your lack of answers as a lack of solutions.

Heh... same old, same old. Your silly dance has an awkward charm to it after a piece. Let's see, what were we talking about? Oh yeah, your claim that those of us advocating smaller government are in favor of corporate domination. It doesn't make sense and you know it, which is why, in typical fashion, you run crying to the "IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!!!" corner. Really rue, who's dodging here? Wanna tell us how the corps and their armies of lawyers will manage without government support? I didn't think so.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 11:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Evidence doesn't support the idea that deregulated markets keep corporations in line. Quite the opposite in fact.

Certainly not the phony 'deregulation' cons that voters keep falling for. Those aren't deregulating a damned thing, just shifting the rules around for the benefit of those doing the shifting. If you really want to make a dent in corporate abuse hows about 'deregulating' the laws that give them special status in the fist place? Make them play by the same rules as the rest of us. Seems like a pretty logical first step. Anything else is just pissing in the wind.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 11:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
But I think it takes a pretty smart person AND a great leader to know when to stay the hell out of the way.

Indeed. And that kind of smarts is considerably rare in government these days. I wonder of Obama "Get's it"?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 11:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
How come every time I bother with an in-depth reply, you suddenly find other things to do, and when the issue comes up again, you falsely assert that I have remained silent on the topic ?

Are you talking to me? Because I got the response. If not could you direct your comments please?

At any rate, economic policies hinged around deregulated markets tend to throw up monopolies. Government funded Social programs, pluristic public institutions and sensible market regulation is an absolute requirement for a functioning non-corporatist economy, not an anathema to it. Assuming Government is the cause of all the worlds ills is simplistic at best.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 11:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Certainly not the phony 'deregulation' cons that voters keep falling for. Those aren't deregulating a damned thing, just shifting the rules around for the benefit of those doing the shifting. If you really want to make a dent in corporate abuse hows about 'deregulating' the laws that give them special status in the fist place? Make them play by the same rules as the rest of us. Seems like a pretty logical first step. Anything else is just pissing in the wind.

Reganite and Thatcherite deregulated markets have had their day. They've thrown up the monopolistic corporations that can then force preferential treatment.

How are deregulated markets supposed to work anyway? Because everyone is always going to make the best decisions for their own self interest, so deregulated markets will always produce optimal results?

Sound like the idealism of things like communism to me.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 11:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Assuming Government is the cause of all the worlds ills is simplistic at best.

And that's a simplistic misstatement of the view being presented here. It's the public's insistence that the government solve all their problems that's at issue. That's the whole point of the article really.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 11:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
And that's a simplistic misstatement of the view being presented here. It's the public's insistence that the government solve all their problems that creates the problems. That's the whole point of the article really.

Except I was responding to Frem's post (the one that says "if government would step out of the way everything would be peachy") not the article.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 11:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Except I was responding to Frem's post (the one that says "if government would step out of the way everything would be peachy") not the article.

Fair enough, my apologies.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 11:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Fair enough, my apologies.

No problem

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 11:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Reganite and Thatcherite deregulated markets have had their day. They've thrown up the monopolistic corporations that can then force preferential treatment.

How are deregulated markets supposed to work anyway? Because everyone is always going to make the best decisions for their own self interest, so deregulated markets will always produce optimal results?

Sound like the idealism of things like communism to me.

I'm not talking about utopia or anything. As I said earlier, the kind of deregulation that Thatcher and Reagan pushed was just rearranging deck chairs. We throw regulation at corporations thinking it's going to make up for the unfair advantage we've given them legally. It's attacking a symptom, but ignoring the cause. The problem is that corporations have an unfair advantage over privately owned business. They're never fully accountable and the legal perks they enjoy permit them to amass power and wealth far beyond what would occur in a real free market.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 11:56 AM

While I agree with my liberetarian brethren that our government often falls down on these issues, often works on the wrong side of these issues, against the people, that isn't a failing of having a government of the people, its a failing of us to utilize it to its potential.

I truly do get that our system has problems, is unfair, is working for the wrong people. My solution is that we should be working to involve everybody in the process...we should be trying to emphasize the importance of our duty as voters, to be informed and to care. There should be a national movement that fosters this idea...

we can't have a representative democracy if the people being elected are only representing a percentage point of our population...

but seriously, if it were used wisely, with great involvment, what is a government but a union on a large scale?

Unions make up their rules about how long a worker can work, what kind of hazards a worker can be exposed to, etc. etc...

The government just happens to have the potential to be the biggest most effective union, or on the flip side, the most corrupt and destructive force on our lives as a whole if we don't babysit it.

So i'm not sure why libertarians are so against the idea of a government that has some bite.

We should be trying to get people to use the tool, to get involved, just like union organizers do...not disuading them from its potential value ---

because seriously, while I think you guys have done a good job of pointing out the problems of our current society, and while I won't accuse you of not answering our questions about how a less regulated society would work, I have never found any of those answers to be sufficient.

Take for example, pollution issues. You say, "a company that pisses us off and pollutes the environment will have to answer to the people, will not make money, will fold.

What if the company just wants to make a quick buck? How long do you think it will take before they are out of business, how many lakes can a company pollute irrevocably(no regulating bodies right?) for the benefit of a quick buck before their choice comes back to haunt their bottom line? How many people will suffer in the mean-time.

What about a company that is polluting the air in california, but its floating over nevada? It's not our problem...and you guys over there have no jurisdiction over us, so...you know...fuck off...

etc. etc.

and you will come back maybe, with "certain things need to be regulated, but only certain things," which honestly, is not so different in the end,than what liberals believe either...

and if we're in that kind of agreement, then I think when we talk about shrinking government's duties and functions, that speaking of that as a generality is not very helpful.

It puts us at philosophical odds, when I'm not sure how at odds we actually are. I'm sure that I could find some common ground with you on some government duties and agencies that aren't neccesary. I'm sure we'd dissagree on some also.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 11:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
They're never fully accountable and the legal perks they enjoy permit them to amass power and wealth far beyond what would occur in a real free market.

But they can. In a real free market people aren't going to make optimal decisions, they're not going to do what's in their best interest.

However the ones who are in it longest will be the ones with most experience, who will learn to make the most optimal decision most of the time.

A true free market will be slanted to those that can make the best decisions, who will end up being the monopolies.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 12:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
So i'm not sure why libertarians are so against the idea of a government that has some bite.

I'm not really. In fact, concerning the kinds of things government ought to be doing, it needs more bite. But we have it running around gnawing on everything in sight. We've got no "bite" left when we need it.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 12:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
A true free market will be slanted to those that can make the best decisions, who will end up being the monopolies.

But the corporate legal structure is what really gives a 'monopoly' its punch. I'm not saying there could never be a privately owned monopoly, but the monopoly problem seems a direct outcome of corporatism.

We're sort of talking in circles here, because you hear 'smaller government and free markets' and think of the Reagan/Thatcher thing. To me, a free market is just an extension of freedom. People ought to be free to trade with each other any way they see fit. That doesn't mean they should be able to negotiate with third world nations to enslave their populations, bringing the spoils home to their stockholders. It doesn't mean they should be free to dominate and control our media and democratic process, passing ever more laws to ensure their dominant status.

Those are the sorts of things that are broken about the system. And these are the kinds of things we could fix with intelligent government policy. But laws that make a felony out of selling "bathtub cheese", or restrict medical resources to an elite cartel... where's the justice in that?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 12:16 PM

Can't disagree with that

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 2:09 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
That doesn't mean they should be able to negotiate with third world nations to enslave their populations, bringing the spoils home to their stockholders.

Because they're so much better off selling dirt for $1.00 a year than earning $0.25 per/hour making Nikes. Why do you call them slaves when their earning more than 90% of the people in their community. If I was one of Barack Obama's brothers siting in a hut in Africa and someone came along and offered me a job, I'd take it and be damned glad to have it. Typical liberal mentality that every one no matter how uneducated or unproductive should make US middle class wages. That type of thinking is what the Dems have used to keep a large portion of their constituency dumb and impoverished for 50 years.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 2:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Why do you call them slaves when their earning more than 90% of the people in their community.

There's probably some of that going on as well. But you're kidding yourself if you think that overall worldwide corporate influence is benign. Way too many situations where multinationals move into a country and buy off local leadership to ensure a dominant position. Then, with the combined power of their own wealth, and the implied backing of US military force, pretty much 'have their way' with the locals. Just ask any of these locals who have tried to stand up to the corps, or the puppet leadership they prop up, how benign the situation is.

Of course, the really nasty bit is when they do try to fight back and the corporations call in their favors and the US military intervenes. You can bury your head in the sand and pretend this isn't going on. And then you can pretend to be surprised when anger boils over into terrorist attacks.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 2:22 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"How come every time I bother with an in-depth reply, you suddenly find other things to do ..."

Is this directed at me ?

"Unions are an effective bulwark against corporate abuses without a Government lending it's support ..." until the jobs go outside of the union's reach, even to another country like China. And then what ?

"I've posted a historical list of that behavior no less than seven times on this board ..." but then failed to post the many instances where government intervened on behalf of its citizens.

"Consumer unions ain't a bad idea either in retrospect to a companies ill behavior or shoddy/dangerous products ..." but consumer unions don't address the commons, or infrastructure, or the common social decisions that need to be made.

"I counter with how the hell are they going to pay them when they are no longer making any money due to massive boycotts of their products ..." You mean like what happened with WalMart ? Or how people 'boycotted' gasoline when the prices went up ? Oh wait, neither of that happened. You put a lot of faith in something that historically has never worked.

"... my answer is the same as it ever was, repeatedly, in spite of your false assertions to the contrary." Which, if I recall correctly, is if you get rid of schools and change society completely and put everybody on the same page (yours, I presume) you'll fix all of humanity and it'll never be a problem. I'm not going to hold my breath.

"Severing the chains of government will not, can not, sever the bonds between us as people ..." like in Somalia ? Afghanistan ? How's that working for them ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2008 2:27 PM