Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by All_Around_Brown, Jan 10, 2006.
Well said Ron Paul....now have some bricks :bricks:
I totally agree............ Now I must go take a shower I feel dirty :bricks: that I agreed with something else on lewrockwell.
Don't you feel stupid for repeatedly bashing it as a left wing whacko site, or are you purple like the rest of mainstream American?
I agree also, I would rather leave a member of the Mafia to watch my family than a US Senator.
Have you ever looked real closely at Arlen Specters face, I wouldn't trust him to empty my garbage, he looks like one of those kids you would bring home and they would steal your mothers frying pan.
Hey, you want some bricks :bricks:
I friggin hate Libertarians. They make so much sense that I became one, and then I spew something from the philosophy at a party and everybody looks at me like I'm from another planet. The idea of killing the IRS and firing 99% of accountants has never occurred to anyone because they both exist as a normal part of life, like snow in the winter and the Pats kicking arse...It's so embarrassing sometimes.
How can you agree with that tripe?
Obviously, in an enterprise as big as the government, there will be corruption, but will it be greater as a percent than anywhere else? There's no reason to believe that. Are Americans in government more dishonest than those in the private sector? Of course not. Is it easier to steal from government than business? Yes and no. Yes, because it's big. No, because it's more open than any business. Does government charge more and spend more than big business? I don't think so. Oil companies have shown that even in a free market collusion is possible. Does money corrupt government? No more than it corrupts business.
The key to good government is openness. The more access we as citizens have to what the government is doing with our tax dollars, the greater the likelihood that we can prevent abuse. But, to take money out of government simply strengthens the hand of business without a counterbalancing force in place.
Yeah, but what about health care and those flys that walk around on kids faces over in Africa?
Patters, the bigger government gets, the harder it is to maintain "openness", and the easier it is for government (administration costs) to get away with skimming off the top. You have so many layers of government today that every program x gets y amount in revenues taken out at each level, and you end up with x-y-y-y-y; all those ys act in sustaining the big government program..
Thats why less government is the best government, its easier to oversee the waste, and to hold accountable the representation of taxation.
As far as your contention that the oil industry operates in a free market...I also respectfully disagree.
I agree that we must do all that is possible to make government efficient, but the same problem exists in business. If you've ever worked for large company, you know that. The difference is that government is more open. Look at the Big Dig, and the likely abuses committed by Bechtel. Don't you think there are many other abuses that we don't know about because there's no way for us as citizens to find out more?
Now as far as bureacracy being bent on sustaining itself, it's not necessarily true. I don't think the public school system is generally overloaded in terms of bureacracy. In fact, it's a fairly flat organization as a rule. Thus, it's possible to make large institutions more efficient, but again that doesn't mean that we reduce the size of government. We have enough slums, hunger, crime, racism, illiteracy, poverty, illness, etc. that government could do much much more. To shift those issues to big business would be far more costly by any measure.
We don't need to reduce government, we need to make it more efficient and shift some its resources around.
I suspect you're talking more about corruption here than over-regulation, or do you really favor a free market where all the power can reside in the hands of a small number of individuals and corporations?
No, I'm talking about petroleum industry subsidization. If we look at the true cost of a gallon of gas, do you think its $2.25 a gallon??
If hypothetically the Iraq war is about securing a strategic supply (which it is), then the true cost is on the order of ten to a hundred times the amount you pay at the pump.
Take government out of that industry, and you have competition for a change. And market competitiveness increases, not decreases, the number of individuals who hold the power in the market. Oil executives would have to think about finding supplies by diplomatic or business means, not by riding on the backs of a superpower swashbuckler with a greedy insane man at the helm.
That's the problem. You don't even know what life would be like without big government. You are living as the second generation under big government and have no point of reference. You have also been taught that the world is SO SCARY and DANGEROUS that you need to be protected by an all-knowing, all powerful government with tons of guns, cameras, domestic activity monitoring, and most importantly, a huge beauracracy set up that derives power and authority from the IRS and its armed enforcement apparatus and impossibly complex tax code.
You have committed the logical fallicy that the anwser to the problem begs the question.
I totally agree with you and it is both political parties who have contributed to the increase in the size of the overly huge government we have now, because they both buy their votes with promises to the gimme society we live in now.
What do you mean I don't know what life would be without big government? Any student of American history knows what it was like. Read about the 1920s and earlier, and the many crimes of big business and the states. Read about the massive child prostitution problems in the cities, the intense poverty and exploitation of workers, the terrible tragedies as a result of miracle cures and lack of building codes, the horrible smells, the miserable roads, and so on. If you're one of those old timers looking for the good old days, they were a myth.
I don't believe the world is scary and dangerous. I'm not a conservative and have probably done as much travel as anyone on this board. I don't favor any of those things you listed, and I don't think they are a necessary result of big government. Under Clinton our government was far more benign.
We have to fight when government gets abusive, but to emasculate it is to shift the power elsewhere, especially to business over which we have far less control, and would have even less control if government was weak.
That's a good example of where government and business are too closely allied. However, I also think it's more a case of the oil companies manipulating government than the other way around, and how can you prevent that from happening with a smaller government? You want a more honest one, and I think honesty is the single most important issue of our times that no one is talking about.
I said what life would be - not what life WAS. I have no interest in the good old days. I read, too. It is a false and rediculous presumption to assume that a small government would produce child slavery and sweatshops in the information age.
Ask the victims of Janet Reno's out-of-control Justice Dept. how "benign" the Clinton years. How many people lost their freedom and property from the "war on drugs"? Get off the Clinton juice
What would stop it? It's no secret that even today employers cut pensions, rip off their companies, pollute the land, shift jobs to low-wage countries, etc. And what about hardcore crime? Without government wouldn't it increase? And if government was to be predominantly a policing and military power (which many libertarians advocate), wouldn't you be afraid that we would become a police state?
What are you talking about with Reno? The Branch Davidians? Elian Gonzalez? Protecting abortion clinics? Not prosecuting pornography cases? As far as the war on drugs goes, I agree with you, but who would enforce legalization?
No he was talking about people growing pot in their cellar, out in the tomato patch, up in the attic, ect, ect, many of them had their homes, cars, boats and wheel-chairs siezed by the "Clinton Justice Machine"
As for Waco and the big "Human Barbecue" that Clinton and that Wierdo Janet Reno put on the whole world knows about it but the
NY Times/CNN and the rest of the Liberal Media made sure it was squashed as soon as possible, just like 9/11, their motto, "don't mention it and it will go away" keep pounding Bush that's what we have to focus on.
I bet Pelosi/Kennedy wish Bush would burn a building full of people down.
We already are a police state. And the way things are, now, we will become more of a police state as Big government continues to build its assets and needs to protect them.
You don't need to enforce legalization. States can impose taxes as they see fit and the feds can regulate interstate commerce and can impose taxes on imports. But decriminalization starts first - then legalization.
And please don't pretend you're unaware of the outregeous activities of Reno and the DOJ goons. Your fake ignorance is beneath you. Cabinet level authority is a direct reflection of the sitting president, and lately, they're all over-the-top arrogant.
Wistah, yes we are on the way to becoming a police state, and I think we agree that that needs to be fought. But the problem with a weak federal government is that local government will become stronger, and local government is far harder to control since it's often run by hacks and special interests. If drugs were decriminalized, the many local governments would step in and find ways to criminalize them. Further, when the federal government was smaller, local governments engaged in all sorts of crimes: fixed juries, blatant racism, bribes, child labor, even the murder of union members.
For me, civil rights is the most important issue, and by that measure Reno was pretty good. I'm really not sure what you're talking about with regard to what she did. I don't think she was perfect, but she ranks among the better AGs. Perhaps you can point me to a link that gives an overview of why Reno was so bad.
I agree there are problems with big government, but I think the solution is to make big government work, not to shift its burdens to local government or even to individuals. The main reason I am for big government is because it is reasonably well scrutinized. I also think, Americans are Americans and the more decentralized the state, the more opporunities for corruption and abuse to spread. But, the key to big government is its openness, something that good government types have been fighting for for years.
Harry, I don't think I'll be responding to your posts much anymore. You just keep saying the same thing, and never have original insights. Frankly, you come across as the person you say you are: someone with only a 7th grade education. Perhaps rather than post here you should try reading a few books.
OK, (I had an eighth grade education, then I quit)
In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself
:bricks: :bricks: :rocker:
whoa..stop right there! Local government is harder to control than the federal???
You are not serious.
Yeah, AAB, I am serious. There's a lot of corruption at the local level. That's why voting rights and civil rights is largely governed by federal law, for example. Also, look at issues like building permits, promotions, overtime, appointments, etc., and you would find an enormous amount of corruption at the local level. I would think on a per capita basis there is less corruption at the federal level. The fact is the federal level does have some checks and balances and a host of people (organizations, media, and politicians) paying at least close attention. Assuming that Americans are Americans, the amount of corruption should be the same regardless of the industry or institution, except where there are systems of checks and balances.
OK....have some :bricks:
Politically, we are on different planets as far as the limits to the role of government. We will never agree.
These are two sites I found on short time. They may not be the greatest, but you get the point.
My point is that almost ALL politicians are corrupt by definition because the system in which they operate is corrupt. Anything that produces an administration like this one with clowns like Cheney, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld (not to mention the Clown in Chief) is inherentl and automatically deemed to be corrupt - even completely malfunctioned. That's it.
Patters isn't speaking to me anymore will you tell Him/Her that Harry Boy said "yeah but what about health care"? :rocker:
You are a senior, IIRC. OK. I have the Bush health care plan right here for you Harry...
Wistah, I agree with you that the system can be greatly improved, and I think the key is openness. We should have the right to easily look at every document that government generates, outside of a fairly narrow range of documents that have to do with national security, corporate trade secrets, and negotiations, but even these should become public within a reasonable time frame. If those documents were online and a good whistleblower system was implemented, I think government would be pretty clean. There would still be sweetheart deals between politicians and corporations, but even when government is weak there are plenty of sweetheart deals, especially at the local level. Libertarianism broadly speaking is an ideal like Communism. Until our society emphasizes respect and honesty, idealistic systems will fail.
Separate names with a comma.