Slashdot Mirror
In Nothing We Trust
Hugh Pickens writes "Ron Fournier and Sophie Quinton write in the National Journal that seven in 10 Americans believe that the country is on the wrong track; eight in 10 are dissatisfied with the way the nation is being governed, only 23 percent have confidence in banks, and just 19 percent have confidence in big business. Less than half the population expresses "a great deal" of confidence in the public-school system or organized religion. 'We have lost our gods,' says Laura Hansen. 'We've lost it—that basic sense of trust and confidence—in everything.' Humans are coded to create communities, and communities beget institutions. What if, in the future, they don't? People could disconnect, refocus inward, and turn away from their social contract. Already, many are losing trust. If society can't promise benefits for joining it, its members may no longer feel bound to follow its rules. But history reminds us that America's leaders can draw the nation together to solve problems. At a moment of gaping income inequality, when the country was turbulently transitioning from a farm economy to a factory one, President Theodore Roosevelt reminded Americans, 'To us, as a people, it has been granted to lay the foundations of our national life.' At the height of the Great Depression, President Franklin Roosevelt chastised the business and political leaders who had led the country into ruin. 'These dark days will be worth all they cost us if they teach us that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to ourselves and to our fellow men,' said FDR. 'Restoration calls, however, not for changes in ethics alone. This Nation asks for action, and action now.'"
... after all, if I can't trust Slashdot, who can I trust?
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Hey, does anybody remember when there used to be tech stories on slashdot?
Yellow journalism (on both sides) is almost completely based around the idea of making us dislike and not trust our fellow humans. The more we can walk away from these inflammatory media sources, the better.
They'll post every detail about their life on Facebook.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
People do not trust Their Party, but they still distrust The Other Party, so they will keep voting party-line.
So nothing will change.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
People complain about spouses and jobs which they in fact want to keep.
Might the same thing be happening here? People still keep their money in banks, shop at big businesses, and don't use any of the many tools for influencing the government. They still call 911 when there's an emergency.
The most remarkable thing about this abject collapse is that not a single facsimile of a leader who understands what is happening and has a glimmer of an idea what to do about it is in evidence. It's just not natural.
You can believe if you want that all 300 million citizens without exception are either STUPID or have no leadership skills whatsoever. But methinks Occam's Razor suggests that there is a powerful, sinister organization which is ruthlessly stamping out any leaders who even start to surface.
The first past the post democratice system essentially forces a 2 party system so you can "win" the election. If there are N parties then they split the vote N ways, any 2 parties in a N party system can combine and gain position. By reduction you get a 2 party system if it is irreducable or 1 a party system if reducable.
Two party democracies do not represent their populace. You can't divide an entire populace into box A or box B on all issues. The two party democracy staggers back and forth from side to side never doing real compromise and never meeting in the middle. Both sides make a mess.
Money has replaced God, even in churches where the preacher stands in a 1000 dollar suit asking for cash
Money aint a score in some kind of game, you have a whole society who thinks "get rich or try dying" was a prophecy not a ignorant statement from an ex-drug dealer
you have entire TV culture based on how much you can earn (auctions/antiques/cars/houses/music), shows that glorify money, hell even some people here dont primarily choose their careers on what they will be doing, but how much its worth in cash and then openly mock Arts students and the like for their "worthless" choices while the best minds on the globe are figuring out how to get more people clicking on adverts for shitty companies with shit ideas.
may you get whats coming
...other than to disagree. Of those 7, 3 are conservatives who believe that things would be just fine if we could undo the damage those liberals have created. Three more think that Obama is too conservative and has abandoned the very people who elected him. The other one is just sick of the other six.
Alex, I'll take keybindings not used by Emacs for $400....
Way more than 69% vote for the Republicrats. (or is that Democans?) They may hate the bastards but they don't want the wrong bastard in office...
Statistics like that are almost enough to make you believe that people had finally worked out the practical applications of 'statistics' and 'empiricism'.
This pleasant feeling only lasts until the next barrage of polling about the existence of guardian angels or horoscopes or whether coffee enemas cure cancer; but so it goes.
In all seriousness, this article manages to have a very important point(trust is an extremely valuable asset in a society, far cheaper and more pleasant than the alternatives of investing in lots and lots of contract lawyers and prisons); but its pessimism masks the counterpoint that loss of trust isn't exactly some sort of mental pathology. If anything, continued trust in the face of getting screwed over is pathological. It is important to distinguish the trust-loss scenarios where paranoia is the problem(eg. violent crime, for most of us. It's available 24/7, anything messy that happens worldwide; but actual levels are deeply unimpressive by historical standards) and trust-loss scenarios where the problem is that they really are out to get you(If you trust banks, I have a loss-proof CDO tranche to sell you)...
I agree. I don't have any faith whatsoever in politicians, in businessmen/corporations, capitalism, the justice system, or - in particular - the media. It seems the sentiment of the day is a combination of "the end justifies the means" and "everyone for themselves".
North American culture (I live in Canada but we are much the same as the US) has become a celebration of ignorance, shallow interests, self-interest, denial of scientific fact, rabid support of political positions with little or no thought about what they mean, and a major drive to eliminate person privacy from our world. Corporations seemingly give politicians their marching orders and they go enact legislation that benefits the corporations at the expense of the people for whom the government supposedly exists. Companies who fail miserably are bailed out - and pay their CEOs massive severance packages using our money, then ship the majority of their jobs overseas by way of thanks. No one cares about the common man, its all a scrabble to get to the top walking on the bodies of those who get in the way. We fight wars based on lies for the benefit of corporations who supply the wars.
I think we have lost any moral compass - and modern religion is not going to provide that moral compass because it is seen as corrupt, power-seeking and backward in its attitudes. I think the world is far too cynical, but then I am trapped in that attitude as well.
I can't honestly think of a single politician in office today whom I believe is honest and working for the benefit of their constituents.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
I wonder how much of this is related to the decline of the old media as the "gatekeepers" of information and analysis.
When you're able to get all the information and opinion you want, pre-filtered for your ideological comfort, the echo chamber seems to foster a real information tribalism. Confirmation bias ends up adding to the idea that institutions are being run by the "others" -- whose motives are necessarily corrupt/selfish/based on ignorance. Just go to any political blog/aggregator and read the comments after a particularly big SCOTUS decision - those lousy conservative/liberal justices just serving their big business/labor masters, and we need an ideological clean sweep in the next election to ensure better outcomes next time around etc etc.
And the EU is doing so well right now, right? We tried that, with the AoC. It didn't work.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
When people say "I don't trust government" or "I don't trust religious institutions" what you usually find when you dig a little deeper is that what they REALLY mean is "I don't trust government from the other party or other states--but MY party/guy is great" and "I don't trust other religions/denominations/parishes by MINE is fine."
In other words, people express displeasure , but it's always for different reasons and against those they already opposed anyway--so no coherent third party ever forms and nothing ever changes.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
So are we permanently losing a 'confidence' that we once had? Arguably no. There is a schism in the world however. It's one that has existed for as long as civilization. The thirst for power, political power, personal power, economic power...and ideology and religion. Ah, the boogeyman finally appears. No matter where you look, the world is now more secular that it has been in two thousand years, and it only grows more so. Traditional gatekeepers in society are becoming less relevant, while new technology is creating new forms of control. All of this creates a climate of fear, which leads to uncertainty and pessimism.
Can technology save us from ourselves? This is the question for the ages, a question that will be answered in our lifetime; consider the pace the world is moving in. Climate change, overpopulation, increase incidences of natural disasters, and even protracted economic chaos. Most of us will live in a world of more than eight billion people. The salvation for everyone lies in our collective ability to innovate, invent, new solutions to the same old problems. Life was not that much different two thousand years ago, it was just a whole lot more boring.
Oh, you mean like it is described in the Constitution? That predates the existence of the EU by 200+ years? Good idea.
Brett
"... But history reminds us that America's leaders can draw the nation together to solve problems. ..."
I would argue that is the source of the problems. Why can't we just admit that you can't bring 300+ million people together on how to spend 30% of the resources. Maybe cut that down to 10% and let the other 20% go back to smaller governing bodies. We need to "draw the nation together" to agree to separate a little bit.
Our system of government is broken and dysfunctional. It's in need of reform. Left or right, nobody thinks this is working as designed.
Government is not the same as country. The american people are still mostly decent people trying to get around with bloated fat bureaucrats mucking up the works.
Our biggest problem is people in charge trying to brainwash us into believing only one political party has all good ideas. There's a word for that kind on blind faith. It's called religion.
I'd consider seeing if New England could strike out on its own and see what came of it.
Probably the same thing that happened when they tried to go it on their own originally.
Like it or not, humanity depends on each other to survive. That's one thing I've never understood about the libertarian philosophy of every man for himself...I don't see how the hell we could possibly have a first-world society based on that type of a world-view. Somalia should be a Libertarian paradise, yet how many people emigrate there from the U.S.? Seems that U.S. Libertarians are more attached to those things that are paid for with our tax dollars than they think...
Why is this article here?
It's here because the robot grader gave it an A+.
"... Journal ... wrong ... big ... public-school ... disconnect ... solve problems ... ruin ... worth all they cost ... action ..."
Yup, with those keywords it's definitely /. material.
And now, ladies and gentlebeings, we now have an answer to the age old question, How good are robo-graders?
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
It's the prisoners dilemma. Sure, if everyone votes out the republicans and democrats, it would be best. But if you're a democrat, a republican in office is likely a legitimately worse outcome for you. And if you're a republican, a democrat in office is about a 1% chance of being worse for you. So the temptation to vote for one of the more-likely-to-win options is strong. If you really want people to change their voting habits, you pretty much need to change the voting system (to ranked choice or the like).
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
I don't recall any moment in history when Americans trusted institutions like the banks or the governments. Which is why they killed-off the central bank in the early 1800s (sadly it came back in 1913), and wrote constitutions to limit government power. Americans fundamentally don't trust giving power to strangers.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
I'm a US citizen and have voted in every major election since 1984.
I come from a US military family. Dad was a pilot in the USAF.
I'm a law-in-order guy.
I really disliked the made up invasion of Iraq, but I didn't speak out at the time. For that, I am sorry. Invading Afghanistan did make sense, but now we need to leave to let them deal with their own issues. They want our help (money), but aren't interested in our education bias and beliefs that women/girls are just as equal as men/boys. That is a long held culture/religious belief. We aren't going to change it in 10 years. Good enough - we need to take our money and leave. Until the citizens of Afghanistan choose to change, we can't help or get our wish list.
I really dislike the government watching everything in the name of preventing terrorists acts. Monitoring telephone, Internet traffic for everyone without a court order is bad. Any organization doing it needs to be held accountable to the fullest extent of law. FBI, NSA, telecommunications companies and even google, twitter, facebook, etc. - there are thousands of other companies doing this.
I really dislike having the freedom to travel impacted by organizations who are trying to prevent every possible failure from happening. It is a lost cause and the impact to our society is 100x worse than a few downed planes. The terrorists have already won since we sheep have given up so much of our freedoms. I say that everyone should be allowed to carry a 12inch knife blade on an aircraft if they like. I bet we are more polite.
President Bush started this out of fear. A scared country like the USA is bad for the entire world. We need to be open and honest, not secretive. Our welcome to all visitors was our main strength.
President Obama has been scared into retaining AND expanding the monitoring, watching, surveillance, and he's left his promises behind. It is sad. Our elected officials don't stand for freedom anymore.
Being afraid of what might happen is foolish. Our minds can come up with millions of terrible scenarios. That is not a waste of time for a small group of experts, but the rest of the country needs to not be impacted.
Don't get me started about religious beliefs that are harmful to entire segments of our population. Religion has no place in US politics. That goes for abortion, science books and gay marriages. Whether religion makes sense in other countries like Iraq or Afghanistan is not my concern.
In the next Presidential election, there isn't any candidate who I can vote for with a clear conscience. This is sad.
I will vote for the least scared politician.
23% still have confidence in banks?
It's time to refresh the tree of liberty?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
People are always dissatisifed with how things are going lately, because they haven't got a clue how things are going or what to do about it. It's just how they feel at the moment that determines things... and there's always something new to be outraged about.
The truth is that we've got an uninformed and unengaged electorate who picks a bunch of people to run things, then immediately starts complaining about them. And whose fault is it if you don't like the politicians? It's the voters. Nobody wants to tell the people that they're the ones to blame for all of the stuff they bitch and moan about (as people would rather hear pandering lies about Washington insiders and evil big business), but they are.
You replace the current crop of voters with a group that actually bothers to get informed and refuses to tow the party line, and you'll see things change real fast. Without that, there's no particular reason for anything to change. After all, politicians want votes. If you vote for it, you're encouraging more of it.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
Yea. Given the choice of Lovecraftian horrors, I vote for Narlyhotep over Cthulhu every time. I know they say Narlyhotep is a dirty african socialist, but he just wants society to exist so we can worship at his yellow robed feet. And Cthulhu is basically running on the platform of "vote for me and I will eat you all". And don't even get me started on Azathoth, sure it claims to be a viable alternative, but then madness and all you can do is chant "vote Azathoth 2012!" whenever anyone expresses the slightest dissatisfaction with the status quo.
You mean programs that minister to ourselves and our fellow men?
Our government is so large that it becomes frustrating to the common person to sort it out. Throw in a political class which is adept at maneuvering the public so that this political class avoids being the focus of attention.
As in, the news is replete with stories about how I should be concerned about how much other people have and how they spend it. Yet I am not supposed to think the same of those in government. Where there the press should be bullying the politicians on how they spend OUR money instead they join right in and do endless stories about how other people spend THEIR own money.
A government which takes every care away from you in life so you don't have to think fully expects you not to. Unfortunately far too many people buy into that.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Actually the reason the EU is Not working is because of too much centralization. If they had never created the central bank, their equivalent to our Fed, and kept separate currencies, the EU would be in fantastic shape. The EU downfall is the same as our downfall - the damn bankers borrowing too much credit with nothing to back it up, and then printing money likes nuts to keep the edifice from collapsing (thus destroying the savings of the people).
Oh and one final thought: The fundamental basis of our Constitution, to quote the man who wrote it, is that the powers of the Congress are FEW and defined, while the powers of the Member States are many. It was always intended to be a union of strong states with most of the power close to the people, rather than ~1500 miles distant..... and last time I checked the 10th amendment was not repealed, so that is still true today.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
I've never had an easier time justifying voting for the lesser of two evils as I have this Presidential election. Why? Because I live in Wisconsin and over the last year have seen first hand what their game plan is if they get control of the Legislative and Executive branches. The state that once elected "Fighting" Bob Lafollette is having it's collective bargaining rights dismantled, a slew of theocratic Christian bullshit shoved down our throats, bills introduced declaring single-mothers are abusing their children, and the repeal of the Equal Pay Enforcement Act, among many other repugnant things.
Democrats are just as owned by big business as the Republicans, but at least they're not trying to actively roll back civil rights in this country. I'll do damn near anything to prevent that shit from occurring on the national stage...
And the EU is doing so well right now, right? We tried that, with the AoC. It didn't work.
No one is suggesting the Articles of Confederation. What is being suggested is that the Constitution be followed as it was intended.
Step 1: Admit that the "Necessary and Proper Clause" does not give the Federal Government unlimited power.
Step 2: Read the 10th Amendment.
Step 3: GoTo Step 1
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
The Occupy movement also qualifies a "real political movement". If you don't like the status quo, self-centered libertarianism isn't the only parade out there to join.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
'Kyklos', meaning 'cycle' in Greek, describes the course of human political systems. In the days of the ancient Greeks the Kyklos was said to take the form of Anarchy->Monarchy->Aristocracy->Oligarchy->Democracy->Anarchy. No matter where on the cycle you start, human nature takes over and tames Anarchy, corrupts Aristocrats, steals power from the Oligarchy, and dissolves Democracy back into Anarchy again.
I'm not sure the old Kyklos works in the modern day, however. It seems to me that we started with Democracy, formed an Aristocracy out of that which has now corrupted into an Oligarchy. With people losing faith in the institutions of the Oligarchy (and thanks to the internet, able to spread their dissent and doubts), we may be headed toward Anarchy now. Or the internet may allow some leader to leverage his charisma and steer us into Monarchy. Either way, Democracy is long done and people have good reasons to worry about the future of America.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
To become president you need to get 270 electoral votes. Not the most, but 270 (or more). So what happens if you have more than two candidates and it ends up such that nobody gets 270? You have no majority and nobody wins. There's no revote or anything, instead the House of Representatives elects the president, and the Senate the vice president. Yes, really, and it happened in 1825.
Well that gives a real incentive for a two party system. With two people it is nearly impossible to not have a majority winner. It is technically possible to split the EC, but hard. However with each additional serious contender, a no-majority situation becomes increasingly likely.
Discuss.
This is a tech site. It's spelled Forth.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Is there really any choice? I support Ron Paul's plan to cut 950 billion dollars and FINALLY balance the budget, but it's pretty clear Mitt Romney will be selected at the party convention. (Romney is 1st; Paul is 2nd.) So my choice is between one banker-funded man named Obama and another banker-funded man named Romney..... both of whom are pro-bombing/pro-killing. I might as well just stay home on election day, since there is not real choice.
And don't say "Vote third party." Been there; done that with Harry Browne, and it does no good. Third parties have never won any seat higher than the Congress. The president's office is always dominated by the top 2 parties (Federalist v. Democrats, or Whigs v. Democrats, or Republicans v. Democrats).
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
She expected the Spanish Inquisition. Which was why the English fleet was waiting in the Channel for them. Because we expected them, we didn't get them. So, for our safety, we should all expect the Spanish Inquisition. And equip our ships with the latest brass cannon. Where was I...oh yes, the powerful, sinister organisation which is ruthlessly stamping out leadership...it's called the electorate. It may be true that politics is increasingly driven by shrieking PR drones, but the electorate has to be stupid enough to listen to them, doesn't it?
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Libertarianism isn't an "every man for himself" anarchy. Where do people get this idea? Is it from some twisted right-wing propaganda?
It means minimal government, and no government meddling in your private lives. It doesn't mean there won't be government funded agencies where it makes sense. It doesn't mean zero social nets and letting people starve to death if they lose their job. It doesn't mean there is no rule of law and people are free to go around killing each other.
I'll vote for New England to secede but only as long as you take S. California with you. And leave, New Hampshire. I like that state.
It's not that the institutions are (significantly) different than they used to be, but, rather, that people are more cynical. Hell -- go back to the 20's, to any manufacturing or mining town -- you could believe in those companies, because you *knew* they didn't give a damn as to whether you lived or died.
It almost seems to me that it's the other way around; now that we can afford to become somewhat complacent, now that we have time on our hands and a means for easy bi-directional communication, many have decided that "things suck." Additionally, I have to lay some of the blame on the hard-core right-wing media: to many of them, stuff *always* sucks. Government is, by definition, bad. Teachers are out to brainwash your children. Etc. (Granted that several of these themes have been held by the hard-core liberals over the years, but not since, or prior to, the 60's did they really give voice to it.)
The bottom line, I suppose, is that more media makes us more cynical.
An extreme version of the Libertarian philosophy is nonsense. Extremes of socialism are just as nonsensical.
Individual autonomy must be balanced against community needs. This seems obvious. Any policy that has way too much of one, to the exclusion of the other, will lead to ruin.
An example: extreme free market capitalism (with as close to zero government regulation as possible) very quickly leads to a market that is controlled by monopolies and/or cartels The "winners" set up barriers-to-entry that prevent new competition from entering the market, even if the competitors are delivering a better product/service at a better price. A market thus controlled is no longer a free market, and all the benefits of free market capatilism go up in a puff of smoke. You can counter this by introducing some government regulation to restore competition...but too much government regulation and you are right back where you started: a controlled market that doesn't function at all.
So, in sum, one cannot judge a philosophy entirely by the disasters that an unchecked extreme application would produce. One should not reject the moderate application of its principles based entirely on the slippery slope fallacy, and one should actively avoid sliding into these very extremes when setting policies.
There's a big difference in the self-dependence of New England as we understand it today (New York state and everything to the north) and the self-dependence of the entire eastern seaboard, obviously.
As a New Englander from Boston, I take offense in your lumping New York in with New England. Despite the name of their baseball team, they are no true Yankees :)
If society can't promise benefits for joining it, its members may no longer feel bound to follow its rules
That's okay. People don't have to live by everybody else's rules, anyway. As long as people are not permitted to violate each other's rights to life, liberty, and property, people should be perfectly free to make their own rules and should not have to feel that they are "married" to every single person for 3.8 million square miles with no possibility of divorce.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
FDR's own Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, believed FDR's fiscal policy to be completely insane, and FDR himself to be a complete loon. (And the economic numbers tend to back him up.)
From Morgenthau's diary, in the seventh year of FDR's "New Deal" program (May 1939):
"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and now if I am wrong somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosper. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started. And enormous debt to boot."
Note this is by the Treasury Secretary himself, not (no surprise) some socialist journalist or armchair economist of the day.
Government spending does not solve economic recessions or depressions. It never has, and it never will.
Yea, but what better way to remove support for a movement than to demonize it as essentially being anarchy?
What really gets me are the brainwashed parrots who prattle on and on about a political movement they, by their own admission, know so very little about, yet somehow 'know' that the current uni-partisan system (masquerading as bicameral) is so much better, never realizing that they are tying the noose for their own necks... and ours as well.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Where do people get this idea?
From libertarians.
Do you know how many times I've heard libertarians tell me we should wipe every regulation off the books and start over? That any form of taxation is evil and wrong? That safety nets only encourage 'laziness and dependency on the government'? According to those Libertarians I've spoken to, taking one single dime from a man to feed someone starving is a far worse crime than allowing the man to starve in the first place. Requiring hospitals and doctors to provide people medical care in an emergency, regardless of ability to pay, is slavery.
You tell me, Libertarian: What taxes are good? What social institutions should be kept? What are some examples of regulations we need to keep, and what makes them more important than other regulations?
He aims for real campaign finance reform, real healthcare reform, and prosecuting corporate and governmental law-breakers.
Which is why you haven't seen him on any major news outlet in the past few months other than Al Jazeera. It's not just politicians who like the status quo. Reduce the amount corporations can spend on politicians and you reduce the amount politicians can spend on advertising.
That's one thing I've never understood about the libertarian philosophy of every man for himself
Possibly because that's not the libertarian philosophy. The libertarian philosophy is that statists need to go away, that people can figure things put by themselves, and this does not mean they want no interaction with others, it means they don't need or want a nanny state telling them how to behave with one-size-fits-all guidelines.
US schools are the classic example. Parents get no choice; schools are chosen based on where you live, and teachers are fixed in place by the unions and school boards. Because of this single central control, as with any bureaucracy, there is no feedback on how well things are doing. The government mandated universal tests are a joke and teachers cram test answers into kids and/or fudge the results instead of teaching the knowledge. Bad teachers can't be fired. Money is wasted.
If, instead, parents were given freedom of choice in schools and teachers, the good ones would be oversubscribed, the poor ones undersubscribed and laid off / fired, and quality would improve dramatically and quickly.
Of course some parents wouldn't care, and some would care about the "wrong" things, but parents who chose to teach creationism, fear of GM food, or the purity of global warming thought would find their kids losing faith in them once they hit the real world. In any case, the result wouldn't be any worse, and it would lose all the friction with government mandated unpopular one-size-fits-all choices.
Infuriate left and right
From self-proclaimed "libertarians", self-proclaimed libertarian "leaders", and libertarian "think tanks".
Yes it is. It comes from the twisted right wing of libertarianism. If you can't get your fanatics under control, they are going to continue to shape your public image. Sorry.
The Best: People decide what our government will be.
The Worst: People decide what our government will be.
Reaping what we sow. No matter how bad it gets, we all continue looking around complaining and doing the same things with even more enthusiasm.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Not even if you're just a Democrat. I'm not and I'm certain that letting the Republicans be in charge would be a much worse outcome. We just tried that not even ten years ago, so it's not like that's theoretical.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
I've posted this before inthis same thread, but...
Rocky Anderson aims for real campaign finance reform, real healthcare reform, and prosecuting corporate and governmental law-breakers. Which is why you haven't seen him on any major news outlet in the past few months other than Al Jazeera. It's not just politicians who like the status quo. Reduce the amount corporations can spend on politicians and you reduce the amount politicians can spend on advertising.
There is not a vast conspiracy in as much as they don't NEED to conspire. They all have settled into a niche they like in the current ecosystem. Everyone wants to keep everything the same, and so they all contribute to it. Large corporations, politicians, the parties and the media. They all want the same thing: to keep things basically the same, which incrementally increasing spending and reducing taxes. They don't care that it's CLEARLY a train wreck in progress.
Each person in power does his or her bit to keep things as they are. They stir the pot, but only enough to keep people upset, not to cause change. Abolition will never be legal or illegal. Mexicans immigrants will never be embraced or sent packing. Campaign finance reform will never get completely killed or actually happen.
The system works. And so we are all doomed unless a force which has a different priority gets some leverage, and forces the above players to look for a new niche.
I wish. Split tickets = split government.
Considering my 30 years experience in dealing with the alternative, I wonder whether or not split government would be a bad thing...
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Democrats are just as owned by big business as the Republicans, but at least they're not trying to actively roll back civil rights in this country
Oh yeah?
These are the people you trust to protect your civil rights?
Palm trees and 8
In practice or in theory?
In theory, the Federal Government abides by the constitution and deals with things outside of, or superior to, the individual states. ie. Minting money, the military, roads, US Postal Service, war, international affairs, felony crimes, taxation, etc.
Individual states would enforce the minimum standards set by the federal powers and can be more stringent if necessary. States *used* to control the Military Reserve units. The POTUS and Feds had to request the use of reservists for operations/actions. (I believe that changed sometime after 9/11, but I don't recall when).
In theory, it's easier to change things at the local and state levels. You can move to another town or state with relative ease, if another area has politics more to your liking.
In practice, (at least, based on my opinion) the Federal Government has substantially more power than the founders ever intended, and as a country we're wrapped up in way more international affairs than we should be. The State Governments are dependent upon the feds for financial support, funding special projects, bail outs, subsidies, etc....(I'm sure there's more, but lets keep this fairly short).
Realistically, most people only care about the federal issues portrayed on the daily news. I'd love to blame this on the media but it's also due to people being lazy -- myself included. I couldn't even tell you who the current City Mayor is, nor name most of the city politicians or state representatives. It doesn't usually make headlines, so we ignore it. Yet every election cycle, we hear about the presidential candidates positions on taxes, guns, abortion, religion, "equal rights", and basically the same talking points that never have any real bearing once the candidate is in office. We eat that shit up. It's entertainment & drama.
Yeah, but ya'll do talk pretty funny.
Wicked Funny...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Pay attention much? For some people, the "wedge issues" are genuinely important.
Have a chronic illness and want to start your own business (or otherwise work anywhere that isn't a government or Fortune 50)? Health reform matters, a lot. In a long-term relationship with someone of the same gender? Legal recognition for that relationship matters, a lot. Go to Planned Parenthood for affordable mammograms and other preventative care? There's one very specific party trying hard to de-fund them for an activity that's less than 2% of the procedures they do. Perhaps you're pushing for urban design that encourages active transportation and liveable spaces -- guess what, one major party tends to support your efforts and another one doesn't (and as something of an activist in this area myself -- while state and local government support is also critical in this area, the comparatively tiny amounts of federal funding that do support programs such as Safe Routes To Schools matter, a lot).
And so on. There are certainly plenty of places where the major parties hold the same viewpoint -- but to say that they're entirely equivalent in every way that matters in peoples' day-to-day lives is nothing short of willful ignorance.
Noam Chomsky has said in the past years, "If you read the polls, it's a dream situation for union organizers and community organizers". I myself don't see any of the institutions mentioned as my institutions. The explanation in the blurb of how these institutions were built up I find as bogus.
I wouldn't use the word Marxist to describe how I look at these things, as I don't think Marx is infallible like Catholics think the pope is, but how I view things is pretty much as he said. I think the central, most important institution in society in the modern world is big business. It is what gets workers out of bed five days a week, it determines if people are employed (I won't go off on tangents like why big business is more important than small business, with examples like how when I grew up there were small, family-run hardware stores and hardware suppliers, a great deal of whom have been put out of business by Home Depots and Lowe's popping up superstores). Organized labor and parties running for Congress can stand in opposition to big business (although that's complex as well).
This central relationship in society, big business or capital, against weaker, newer, less organized organizations such as organized labor, occupy protests, political parties which represent the needs of working people - this can be called the base. Then there is what can be called the superstructure - the institutions which support the base, but indirectly. The chart is full of superstructure institutions - congress, television news, criminal-justice system, newspapers, public school system, presidency, supreme court, churches and police. These are all institutions of the ruling power, big business, but indirectly. It's obvious how congress is. Television news and newspapers are owned by big business - GE, Viacom, News Corp. Churches are more indirect. "Work hard all your life and don't rock the boat, even if your kids are poor and you get nothing except back breaking work, your reward will be in the 'next life'". This and all that type of bullshit is exactly what you conjure up to get a docile working class who will slave away for you without complaint.
The economic system we live in can't handle the economy - just look at Europe, or even unemployment in the US. Marx predicted that capitalism couldn't control the economy a century and a half ago - he said over time, our economic crises would get worse and worse until we have another 1930s type situation where they really break down. You can read Capital to see why this happens. Workers would become *alienated* from their institutions.
He saw a whole history of societies with economic relations - hunter-gatherer bands, Roman and Greek slave societies, Middle Ages feudalism, collapse when superior organizational forces organized a new form of society. Albert Einstein goes into this a little in "Why socialism?" Since it's for a future society no one knows what the post-capitalist society will be like. Only that the majority of the working class will have to be organized to fight for the new idea. What it will be depends - there's even a right-wing variation of this in national socialism and fascism. Social democrats (used to) believe we'd go to socialism, but gradually, without "revolution". Communists believed in organizing Marxist-Leninist political parties and aligned unions, and different strategies, which often included revolution. Anarcho-syndicalists beleive in organizing all workers into one big union who would liberate themselves, without soc-dem politicians or communist party commissars. And so on.
The whole question is, who will be the elite group that organizes the workers to fight against capitalism and for the new system. Or will there be an elite group - will anarchists have workers liberate themselves? What direction will they try to move society in? No matter how weak capitalism is, and how it can't provide for basic needs, with worse and worse crises as time goes on, without some group becoming self-aware, and organizing
The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks.
~ Lord Acton (of absolute power corrupts absolutely fame)
Capital must protect itself in every way... Debts must be collected and loans and mortgages foreclosed as soon as possible. When through a process of law the common people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and more easily governed by the strong arm of the law applied by the central power of leading financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders. This is well known among our principle men now engaged in forming an imperialism of capitalism to govern the world. By dividing the people we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us except as teachers of the common herd.
~ JP Morgan
There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.
~ John Maynard Keynes, 1920
All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise, not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from the downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.
~ John Adams
Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind, none has been more effectual than that which deludes them with paper money. This is the most effectual of inventions to fertilize the rich man's fields by the sweat of the poor man's brow. Ordinary tyranny, oppression, excessive taxation--these bear lightly on the happiness of the mass of the community compared with a fraudulent currency and the robberies committed by depreciated paper. Our own history has recorded for our instruction enough, and more than enough, of the demoralizing tendency, the injustice. and the intolerable oppression on the virtuous and well-disposed of a degraded paper currency authorized by law or in any way countenanced by government. It is one of the most successful devices, in times of peace or war, of expansions or revulsions, to accomplish the transfer of all the precious metals from the great mass of the people into the hands of the few, where they are hoarded in secret places or deposited under bolts and bars, while the people are left to endure all the inconvenience, sacrifice, and demoralization resulting from the use of depreciated and worthless paper.
~ Andrew Johnson - 1868 State of the union address (apparently he was quoting Daniel Webster) - also quoted by Nelson Aldrich, architect of the Federal Reserve system
100 Million Dollar Penny: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dl1y-zBAFg
The first ever GAO (Government Accountability Office) audit of the Federal Reserve was carried out in the past few months due to the Ron Paul, Alan Grayson Amendment to the Dodd-Frank bill, which passed last year. Jim DeMint, a Republican Senator, and Bernie Sanders, an independent Senator, led the charge for a Federal Reserve audit in the Senate, but watered down the original language of the house bill (HR1207), so that a complete audit would not be carried out.
http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3
What was revealed in the audit was startling:
$16,000,000,000,000.00 had been secretly given out to US banks and corporations and foreign banks everywhere from France to Scotland. From the period between December 2007 and June 2010, the Federal Reserve had secretly bailed out many of the world's banks, corporations, and governments.
It's true, though. It is a form of slavery, and hand-waving "compassion" over it doesn't change that fact. It would be better if you'd just call a spade a spade and say "You know what? Fuck you. You will pay for medical care whether you want to or not. You will pay for emergency services. You will pay for these roads. You will pay for the education of your fellow citizens. You don't have to like it, you can cry about it and even vote to change the amounts, but these are things we, as civilized people, accept as necessary to keep society civil, reasonable, and advancing. If you want to cry about being treated as a child, then stop acting like a child."
In the best-case scenario, these people would go find a gulch and jump off it.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
Simple....a local bureaucracy is much more accountable to you, than a national one is. It had better reflect your needs and views better, because you can more easily vote them out.
The local govt. has benefits over national, it knows more about what your community needs since it is there with you. The needs of citizens from NYC are much different than those from Tucson, AZ. Citizens from New Orleans want a govt. with laws that reflects a lifestyle different than those from Salt Lake City, Utah.....personally, I like being able to run around the city with my drink in a "to go cup"...I kinda doubt those in SLC want to allow you to order a mixed drink to go and walk about the city with it.
Sure, there are needs for things at a national level...but the founding fathers pretty much figured out what MOST of that limited need was, and put that into the US Constitution.
The US is large, and has a very diverse population, and diverse landscape.....one size definitely does not fit all well.....states are a good level for suiting the various needs of the populace in the regions in the US. That's why most of the power in the US is supposed to reside with the states....so they can be more responsive and reflective of your needs. And, the nice thing is...if you don't like things in your state, you can move to a state that is more of your liking.
If everything is national.....that option is removed from you.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Stop focussing on winning, and then maybe you can experience victory. Winning isn't everything -- affecting the dialogue is important and can lead to real change, and THAT is victory. With a few losses for the major parties (to the other side), it won't take a brilliant partisan hack to realize that selling out their constituency is not the way to win elections, and because the Repubs and Dems are concerned primarily with winning, not issues, they will adjust their issues to win back dissidents. But your voice won't be heard if you join the masses of disinterested by not voting. A protest vote, even though you know your candidate will lose, has value and the more people who realize that, the more likely we will see change. Not this year, not in four years, not in eight -- but long term. It is the short-term lesser-evil thinking that is the true evil.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
I like how the fore fathers set up the US, with the constitution and all.
Trouble is...it has gotten so bastardized, that I dunno how we can 'reset' the clock so to speak on things.
Simple: Stand up not only for your own rights, but the rights of the people around you, regardless of personal peril and what you think of them as individuals. If you see a TSA agent getting ready to feel up some terrified child, stand up and say something; encourage those around you to do the same. There's no way they would be able to engage in these horrific violations of individual liberty if we just plain ol' stopped putting up with it.
Our society is to a point where we essentially have only 3 options left:
Keep taking it up the ass from government and big business and lose our liberties forever,
Start standing up for the rights of ourselves and our fellow Americans publicly, loudly, and en masse, or
Civil war.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
It's true, though. It is a form of slavery,
And that response is exactly why Libertarianism will never succeed in the real world. There are few people in the world today that are so callous with such a disrespect for human life as to think that the poor should be turned away from Emergency Rooms if they don't come bearing the appropriate payment, and even fewer that would actually attempt to advance an idea like that in the first-world and expect broad support from anyone.
Just more anti-social bullshit for basement dwellers to fixate on. The fact that their own upbringings were subsidized by the same nanny state they're bitching about today is lost on them. Don't cry to me when people call "a spade a spade" and tell you what a fucking asshole you are.
Oh please. Go talk to someone who has experienced slavery (plenty of people in the world) and you ask them if they'd agree.
Being taxed for services that benefit the community you are part of thereby directly or indirectly benefiting you is not slavery. You aren't working for free, you are being paid in social capital. You have a safety net. You benefit from a cooperative, helpful and happy society. You get all sorts of direct benefits like roads and schools and knowing the hamburger you're eating isn't going to contain 10% earthworms.
Nobody is forcing you to participate. If you don't like the way that a civilized society works and would rather go back to tribal times, you're free to leave. Head over to Somalia, the libertarians paradise.
I have a different opinion than most of the posters here on the problem with the U.S. policy machine and electorate right now. I think it has to do with the ideology of unity, i.e. that we are the "United" States of America, that we are basically all the same, that we share interests and goals, that we are all in this together.
This is untrue, but here and elsewhere, I see no national awareness on the part of the political machine or the electorate that there is basically no unity and no way to achieve it. If we could all acknowledge that, there would be an understanding of the need for compromise.
Instead, over and over again I see people assuming that their understanding of what is wrong is shared by virtually everyone, and that if virtually everyone knows what's wrong but it hasn't been fixed yet, it must be because of those "other" people that are in the minority but that are somehow pulling the strings in "today's America" and are somehow corrupt/oppressive/dangerous/evil.
Just in this discussion I see people saying that the problem is obviously:
Franklin Delanor Roosevelt
The Welfare State
Religion
The end of religion
The pill
The wrong understanding of God
Selfish banks
Selfish politicians
Selfish media
Poor public education
Global overpopulation
Technological malaise
Money
Bureaucracy
Liberals
Conservatives
Libertarians
An active sense of entitlement
An overly passive population
Centralized government
The absence of an external threat
Feudalism
Lawyers
Cynicism
Capitalism
The decline of the family
The decline of values
Consumerism
and so on.
And each presents the argument as if it's authoritative. And many seem to imply that there is some kind of majority involved ("More and more countries..." "The American public..." "we this..." "we that...")
The framing in terms of "we" or in phrases that imply a majority place everyone that disagrees outside of a presumed collective. I see this on both sides of the political aisle right now. In 2011 I lived both in New York City (very liberal) and in Utah (very conservative) and both populations have the same certainty, with a different focus.
For the New Yorkers in lower Manhattan, it's obvious that America has had it with a tiny minority of crazy conservatives trying to destroy the nation, and if Obama doesn't win the next election, it's because this minority has stolen it from the American people. For the Utahns, it's obvious that America has had it with a tiny minority of crazy socialists trying to turn America into the Soviet Union with Islamist tendencies, and if Obama wins the next election, it's because this minority has stolen it from the American people.
Both refer to American values and American history constantly, but totally different versions of these.
There is limited or no understanding that monotheism and polytheism and atheism are all American values, that black slaves and white colonialists and native tribes are all "founding members" of our present society in some way, that the populace includes sizable blocks of both highly conservative pro-life, pro-national religion, anti-feminist, anti-immigrant libertarians and highly socially liberal pro-choice, pro-secularism, pro-feminist pro-immigration social democrats, and everything in between.
Somehow the "melting pot narrative" has broken down and the Utahns imagine that "most Americans" drive a truck, own horses, have a rifle under their seat, and are married with children and mom staying at home while dad plays provider, while the lower Manhattanites know that "most Americans" take public transportation, are more and more concerned with global warming and local green economies, are down on cars and big oil and guns, and are living in "alternative" family situations to that "traditional narrative that was never representative anyway."
When told about the other side by me, people in both groups had the tendency to say about the other that "those people just c
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
The real issue here isn't a lack of trust -- it's a lack of maturity.
Life isn't fair. All the democracy in all the world isn't going to make it so. All the progressive mandates and sweeping government programs/reforms won't make it so. All the freedom and conservative/religious values won't make it so.
The reason everyone feels betrayed is because, down deep in their hearts, they think that life should be fair, and they should get "what they deserve," despite everything going on around them. Maturity is recognizing that bad stuff is gonna happen to you, it isn't your fault, and thats okay. Thats why you have friends, family, and a small local community. That is who is supposed to pick you up when you fall down, just like you pick them up when they fall.
The rub is that being a part of a community requires commitment, maturity, and humility. You can't be a member of a community when its convenient for you, and then not when its a hassle. You have to be willing to forget your grudges and help other members of the community, even those you may not personally like very much. You have to be grateful for the help that others give, and recognize you haven't earned it. You have to be able to swallow your pride, accept help from others, and recognize you don't deserve it.
I don't blame the political system for our current "woes". I blame a citizenship with collective emotional maturity of a 13-year-old girl, constantly screaming "That's not fair! I'm not a little kid any more!"
Libertarianism isn't an "every man for himself" anarchy. Where do people get this idea?
From the same place you got the idea that Anarchy is?
The core to libertarianism is freedom of association.
If an institution is good, more people will want to associate it with it. If the institution fails, people can leave it or start a new one.
Of course, this gets messy as you go up the chain of government. Some business creates a service that I don't like, I just choose another business. Some city creates a service... that I don't like... well I just leave that city.
It gets harder as you move up in government... now you want me to leave the state... then leave the country. Your freedom of association becomes less and less.
Humans will always create institutions as there are always common problems to solve. The main difference is your ability to leave such institutions when you no longer think them satisfactory.
The Western world had a revelation a while ago about giving people freedom of religion. No longer would be killed for leaving Christianity. No longer would particular religions have the power of the State. Islam of course has not gained this insight... and you see it being left behind.
I'm hoping for another enlightenment where we gain freedom of association for the other aspects of life.
and unfortunately this kinda of mentality breeds single issue voters. Oh hey, Joe Politician wants to revoke the constitution, legalize murder and provide kids with crack in their school lunches. Hmmm, I don't know... Oh wait! He supports gay marriage! I know I'M voting for him.
This single issue thing seems to be more common among my republican friends, but it's not exclusive to them. People that do this crap are more willfully ignorant than anyone and it drives me crazy to talk to them. Seriously, Hitler could get elected just by supporting one of these wedge issues.
In 2005, New England (ME, VT, NH, MA, RI, CT) was a tax donor, receiving $5.71 for every $6 of federal tax. (2005 is the latest data available from the Tax Foundation)
Looking at the articles list of what we have lost faith in there are a few things that make sense.
Church and Religion, after 911, with two wars, with a depression, of course people turn to religion because they offer a framework to feel good in.
HMO's because they take care of our illnesses and improve our heath.
Criminal Justice system because that (like doctors) are the people and institution we rely on as the last resort to bring justice. Which in this time of Gun crazy violence, Bernie Madoff thefts, embezzlement by public officials we have to rely on.
So what factors since 2002 might lead to the rest of the downturn in confidence.
Changes in laws that allow search and seizures that didn't happen before, which might explain the police downturn, add a few prominent torture cases in the news and maybe a gun related shooting in Florida with no investigation or arrest and that might explain some of that.
Two wars, (one because of a lie), thousands dead, tens of thousands of our solders damaged, hundreds of thousand civilian casualties. Maybe that explains some of the military downturn.
Pushes to de-fund public schools, breaking of unions, the no-child left behind fiasco, the leaving of the high paying manufacturing jobs, leaving less reason for education being economically important for business, add a dash of creationism idiocy into some public schools, and a youth culture that had turned away from eduction as a positive value and the whole system being pressured by the right wing with the agenda of making it fail so they can start making money off that segment of the market at the same time teaching their own brand of education, might explain some of that downturn.
The intense campaign to get rid of manufacturing, bust Unions by the right wing (starting with the public sector) is part of their move to increase the value of ownership at the expense of the workers that make them their money. They just don't want to share the wealth. Which both explains the downturn in Union and Big Business. But of course Big Business has been caught red handed polluting , perpetrating fraud (ENRON), Destroying the environment on a mass scale (Gulf).
The Presidency has had one president (Bush) that nearly bankrupted us with two wars and a tax cut, plus Tarp (with no strings to Wall Street, are they for real) and an economic collapse. Then the Right Wing Hate Machine trying desperately to blame Obama for the mess Bush and his party got us into. The lack of respect that the Republicans show for the office of the President does not help. I wonder if they think if they get into office, anyone is going to show them any more respect or if they are going to follow the Republican example?
Banks have been hard pressed because of low fed funds rates, they have had to start charging fees to make some profit because the don't have the interest spreads they used to to siphon off some profit from accounts, no one likes fee's, add the foreclosure fallout of their bad decisions and you have a good explanation for bad Bank confidence (oh yes and a few bank failures to boot).
Well Congress has been miss-behaving for years, more so lately with the blatant lack of any responsibility to the country to govern using our two party system. This no compromise on ultra right wing principles has left the country legislatively leaderless. It is remarkable that Obama has been able to get any good legislation through.
The "Left Wing Media" is a myth. It is really corporate media controlled by about 5 companies and they have stopped doing journalism and they filter on conservative ideology and sensationalism as exampled by the almost total lack of coverage of the tens of thousands of Wisconsin citizens that were protesting Scott Walker initially. Many news casts ignored that rather large and important news story, which was unprecedented in recent years. But the right wing keeps crying "Left Wing Media", "Left Wing Media". They would probably accuse Regan of being "Left Wing" as well. Its all
If, instead, parents were given freedom of choice in schools and teachers, the good ones would be oversubscribed, the poor ones undersubscribed and laid off / fired, and quality would improve dramatically and quickly.
Could be. I rather suspect that the result would be that the rich would get nice schools, while the middle class and the poor would get worthless schools. That happens today to some extent, of course, but it would be much more pervasive.
But you can easily disprove my theory. Point to a country without public education which has a healthy, thriving, affordable education system. If privitizing schools is a great idea then there should exist some libertarian utopia with small government and good schools for everyone who wants them.
I'll go first and point at the Scandinavian countries as having centralized, affordable, good-quality education. You?
The problem with libertarianism is that it only curtains the power of government. It gives by default even more power to corporates to run he world. And they have no morality nor any desire to make the world a better place. Only to enrich themselves at the people's expense. It's an out of the frying pan into the fire philosophy.
Well I've got an idea for you Americans, see if you like it:
You're going to have presidential elections in November.
Form a national political party with only one single goal: constitutional reform so that the voting changes to the more normal multi-party system that all democracies in the world use (except for USA, UK and I believe a few more UK-commonwealth states).
Make sure to solemnly pledge to relinquish power and hold new elections once the constitution has been adapted for the new voting system.
You're only thinking that your current system is normal and/or effective because you grew up with it, and because your closest allies the UK and Canada have the same broken system (the UK Lib Dems *could* have changed all that but for some reason decided not to, now that they finally have a coalition government).
Wikipedia links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
All you would get is a fresh slate of alpha sociopaths.
Go ahead and start a PAC. The alphas will control it before the ink is dry on your flyers because they are willing to do what it takes to get to power- things you are not willing to do.
No, I don't have a better answer. What do you do against people willing to do anything in their drive for power?
It's because you're locked into a two-party-system. Seriously.
In a multi-party system, Ron and Rand Paul would have their own small political party, trying to occupy the pivot point for some political issues; the Republicans would be split into the "Tea Party" and "Fundamentalist Christian Party" and "Rich People Power Party" and "War-monger Party", the Democrats would be split into the "Rich People Power Party" and "War-monger Party" and "Hollywood rules the world" party, and the Greens and Nazis and Libertarians would work hard to get above the 5% election threshold that would give them free airtime and debate time and money for posters (I can't believe anyone in your country really wants to give political parties the money to inflict robo-calls on you).
What you have now instead, is the best government money can buy. But that works for itself, not for you the voter. And it is not in its best interest to change the status quo.
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
They are just hard working people who help people check out books and find good things to read....
Oh what...?! Libertarians...!
That's very different. Nevermind.
What's that, struggle initially, but eventually develop into one of the most affluent and successful regions in North America? Because I swear, I thought you were trying to make it sound like the Plymouth Colony failed.
No, it shouldn't. It never has been, and never will be. Libertarians understand and support the rule of law, as well as the exclusion of force as a means for individuals to deal with one another. Neither of these conditions are found in Somalia, a land with a failed government, no effective governance, ruled by rival warlords.
But I guess you missed Libertarianism 101, you must've been such an expert that they let you skip forward to the really advanced classes.
The Libertarian ideal is:
1. You have a right to life.
2. You have a right to do what you want.
3. You have a right to your affects/property.
X. No one can infringe on someone else's rights by "force or fraud".
This doesn't mean "wipe every regulation off the books". A significant number, yes. However, it also means allowing people to sue others for pollution...even air pollution.
A Libertarian isn't against the idea of taxing. They are against spending by Central Government beyond what is outlined above, and therefore don't like being taxed to cover the "other stuff". A Libertarian is more accepting of certain taxes over others though.
A Libertarian is against anything that favors a group of people over another group of people. Any kind of collectivism is generally considered bad. So giving welfare to a welfare class isn't optimal. Although not Libertarian, it would be more accepting to just give everyone, poor or rich, a check to cover basic food/shelter/medical services. See Milton Friedman's acceptance of the idea of a Basic Income. It is more accepting because it doesn't favor a certain group of people, there is no means test, and there is still an incentive to work. Right now, someone on welfare, if they start working, could actually make less money.
A Libertarian would argue that it isn't society's responsibility to favor certain people (the poor). That is the job of the people through charity. I am more in favor of a Basic Income concept, but scared as hell of the slippery slope it would cause. Just have some supreme unchangeable law that the money is computed based on the price of rice, beans, water, group housing, and sensible medical care.
Example of regulation to not keep. Get rid of the SEC and the idea of "public companies". All companies should be private and if they want to expose themselves to investors, join a private exchange that regulates its members. Get rid of regulating alcohol, drugs, weapons, transportation, etc... Never prohibit; just educate. Make all drugs (and all things) provide full disclaimers in standardized way. Maybe a website of product information and comparables.
Don't ban certain light bulbs and toilets. Don't force cars to have black boxes. Don't build roads (subsidizing a mode of transportation) that aren't offset by tolls. I could go on...
You might bring up regulation on nuclear power. A regulation I would accept is that anything that could cause an individual to go bankrupt would have to be insured. This includes car liability insurance. Make every pay now and provide an incentive for them to take the precautionary measures to lower their premiums...maybe to the point where something like nuclear power becomes economically feasible (which it wouldn't be right now if they had to insure against meltdowns).
The problem with libertarianism is that it only curtains the power of government. It gives by default even more power to corporates to run he world
That is the main reason I refuse to identify as libertarian, even though I agree with the rest of the party philosophy.
The guys who wrote the Constitution were damn smart, and made sure to make it as clear as they could which rights belonged to the federal government, which belonged to the states, and which belonged to the people.
One will quickly notice a conspicuous absence of rights for corporations, even though at the time of the Constitution's writing incorporation was not a new concept.
As I said, the founders were damn smart. Their descendants, not so much...
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I too wonder why all the Libertarians are HERE and not THERE getting rich in the government free paradise.
Which is why it's incumbent upon individuals, under Libertarian thought to:
1) Take responsibility for their own activities;
2) Build your own safety nets with your own community and family. This pairs nicely with #1: if you're not a rotten son of a bitch to everybody around you, chances are they will value you, and be willing to help you out when you're down on your luck.
3) Engage in private charity, and encourage others to do so, to provide those safety nets for other people.
There's a lot of people who love to pretend that "if government doesn't save you, nobody will," and that's a false dichotomy, because there is:
a) No guarantee the government will save you (how many issues have we heard about with quality of care in the VA medical system, DSS/Family Services, and the like?)
b) No reason to assume that private charities (and there are many) will suddenly cease to exist and stop providing charity to people who need it if you begin scaling back on government-provided charity.
No..that's the way it works. Of course, not everyone locally wants and thinks 100% the same way....BUT, they all have more in common and want more of the same things...than nationally.
Again, my example...locally here, we have very lax open container laws, meaning in New Orleans, you can walk into a bar, order a drink to go...and walk about town with it.
I doubt the same thing would fly with the majority of people in Salt Lake City.
When laws and regulations are more local...then if you are one of those people that don't like how it is done in that city/state...then, you are free to move to another city/state where the laws and regulations differ. If you do this on a national level, you no longer have a choice...and your voice is drowned out by the masses of people....at least locally, you can generally get up and meet and tell your representation how you feel and petition them and actually be heard by them. Hell, most people can easily go to a city council meeting.
Good luck doing that with your senator....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
If, instead, parents were given freedom of choice in schools and teachers, the good ones would be oversubscribed, the poor ones undersubscribed and laid off / fired, and quality would improve dramatically and quickly.
So basically, teaching expertise would flow to the richer areas that can afford them, and poorer (money-wise) districts lose out, and deal with sub-standard education (or none at all)? That's how you run a 21st century super power?
I mean, free markets work great for pricing onions and cars and consumer electronics, but implied in all of those markets is the fact that some people can't afford to buy the goods and thus go without. When it comes to education (and healthcare for that matter), we can't just say "too bad you can't afford service"; they aren't a good match for free market "solutions".
Nobody is forcing you to participate. If you don't like the way that a civilized society works and would rather go back to tribal times, you're free to leave. Head over to Somalia, the libertarians paradise.
Damn right. We keep hearing about what an imposition all these things like taxes and such are, especially from people making 6-figures or more a year...if it's so fucking bad, why does anyone become successful? I mean, if we're all "punishing success" with taxes, where are the legions of C-level executives abandoning those high paying jobs for McDonald's and Walmart? Where are all the property owners selling their homes to go live in apartments so they don't have to deal with the "burden" of property taxes? I hear ethereal threats from anonymous "job creators" all the time about how "it's not worth it" to own a business and have employees and all that other shit, but guess how many businesses I've seen close because "it's not worth it"? Zero. Where the hell are they? I mean, for all the bitching, why aren't there business owners calling grand press conferences to layoff all their employees because "it's just not worth it"? Where are the guys willing to go on record and put up or shut up as regards how everyone is "punishing them" for "being successful"? With all the hatred of Obama these days, you'd think there'd be people willing to do that just to get their dig in at the President, especially those wealthy enough to actually be able to afford to torpedo their livelihood that way just to make a point.
I mean, there's all the name-calling and insulting, but where is the actual follow-through? Where are the legions of wealthy people closing down their shops and running off to Libertarian fantasy lands like Somalia and Zimbabwe? I mean, it's not like they can't afford it, right? All I ever see are wealthy people closing their shops so they can open them in China or India and make more fucking money. If we're "punishing their success", why in the blue fuck would they be trying to increase their bottom-line? Wouldn't that increase the "punishment"? And why live in the first-world at all if it's so fucking bad? You don't need that "nanny state", right?
These fucking people all think that they were raised in the woods by wolves or something and that they didn't benefit from all this shit just the same as anyone else growing up. That, or they're being deliberately obtuse as to the necessity of taxes and social programs in a first-world society. There are some elements of Libertarianism that are actually attractive to me (ending the War on Drugs, for one...prohibition as a means to control vice in any form, honestly), but unfortunately, the bullshit that often comes along with it, like dumping safety nets is totally repugnant to me, especially as regards access to fucking health care. Find me the Libertarian that doesn't think health care is a privilege, and not a right, and I do believe I may have a fucking aneurysm.
From what I've seen from libertarian supporters it generally actually means:
1. very low to no taxes. Keep the government out of my wallet.
2. very few regulations. Keep the government out of my business/gun collection/telling me who and who I can't serve in my own shop.
3. very little redistribution. See 1. I keep mine, you keep yours.
These combine to mean that if you're born poor, you'll stay that way; and vice versa if you're rich. It ignores that those with money find it much easier to make more money. When people don't want to pay taxes, it means that education and healthcare especially suffers for the poor and middle classes. The wealthy can afford good schools and healthcare, so entrenching their advantage, while the poor are effectively locked into being poor, while the middle class disappears as they now have to compete for their jobs with the cheapest possible workers, often overseas. Remember, no government regulation of business. The environment suffers, as businesses can pollute away, and the commons has no protector. Racism, sexism and other 'isms proliferate, as again, the existing wealthy land and business owners entrench their positions of privilege, and there's no one telling them 'no'.
Oddly enough, it's the wealthy, white business owners who are most likely to be libertarians.
Government is not meant to protect the rich and strong elite. It's meant to protect the vast majority of the population against the predations of those powerful, wealthy men. Government by the people, FOR the people. Libertarianism is entrenching their power and privilege, not challenging it. Of course, the easiest way to stop the government doing that is for the selfish members of the wealthy elite to slowly take over the media, then the government, and use both platforms to tell the population over and over that the best way to improve their lot is to get rid of meddling government and their infernal taxes...
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
Yes, the good old, "leave if you don't like it" model.
All but the most anarchic of libertarians believes that the government exists for a specific purpose. Armed protection in the form of an army and police and, enforcement of contracts are two. However, the laws that the government creates need to be as few and as clear as possible. The reason for this is because the people need to understand their obligations and the police need to understand their limits and place. The understanding is the government is necessary, because cohesive force is needed for certain things, but its a problem when it is used for everything.
Government is only one way to get the things that you mentioned. Roads existed before the Federal government, so did schools. People didn't die of food poisoning in droves before the government stepped in. You may well see a plethora of toll roads and private schools, but you're already paying for them in taxes right now. And there are still some toll roads out there to boot.
Point is, yes we can't just shut down the government. It won't work. I'm not stupid enough to believe that we can just withdraw from the world and shut down social programs. We'd fall apart immediately. The problem is, the model isn't going to work forever. This very morning I heard that the social security taxes I pay every paycheck will be consumed years before I retire. And THAT was supposed to be merely an enforced savings program. It wasn't even a tax, but they saw it as yet another revenue source for the General Fund. If they can't even get that right, it's just not going to work over the long term.
Other solutions can work better, if we take the time to wean ourselves off the current ones. Will that happen short of a revolution? No idea.
This is why our system was designed with the most power with the people, then the local government, then the state, and finally leaving the federal government with very specifically-defined powers necessary to keep the overall peace between states and provide for the common defense.
Now the fed has taken most of the power, so our system isn't really working all that well anymore.
... not because of government.
There is a nagging feeling of nihilism today. That nothing we do as an individual matters - including voting. That is a HUGE problem. People, in general, are busy going about their lives. When we do vote, we try to make good decisions. But it doesn't seem to make any difference. Time and time again, politicians have shown that any trust the public puts in them is horribly misplaced.
Like the old adage says: Anyone who actually wants to be President, should not be elected.
What do you do against people willing to do anything in their drive for power?
Hmmm... Make the drive for power irrelevant? For example, provide powerful mechanisms for negative feedback (allow lawsuits against leaders, or make sure people can relatively easily remove a bad leader), but no mechanism for positive selection (which is the thing currently abused by those sociopaths you mention). This way nobody can vote for a certain candidate - instead assign leadership positions randomly from a large non self-selecting pool (for example, all adult population). Also, make the leadership service mandatory for whoever gets selected (kind of like jury duty).
You are using the logic of fear. "Do not try to limit government, the big bad corps will run over us all."
Why not just be aware of that possibility and take steps to deflect it? Freedom is important and should not be sacrificed out of fear.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
What steps?
It doesn't have to. Libertarians would rightfully point out that corporations are a legal fiction created and given power by the state.
Libertarians tend to be pro-market, not pro-business. Corporations like restricted and regulated markets - free markets (with their attendant "creative destruction") terrify them. "Too big to fail" is a statist term, not a libertarian one.
If companies had to be organized in smaller units (which would be just fine from a libertarian perspective), you'd be far less scared of their power. Resilient networks of smaller companies that are more in tune with their communities should work nearly as well given modern communication systems. If GM leaves Detroit, it's devastating; if Hank's Tool and Die closes down, it's sad for them, but life goes on.
Even the biggest bugaboo libertarian scary monsters, the Koch Brothers and Koch Industries, are organized as a private corporation - it's pretty much owned and run by two guys. Big, big company, but far more like the local guys who did really, really well than the faceless transnational corporations that strike the biggest fears on the left.
Whether you call it a corporation or a big company, there is no reason for it to not exist if there is limited government. And indeed without anti-trust anti-monopoly laws, there is no restraints on how big and influential a company can get, nor on cartels that run entire industries against the interests of the people.
There's certainly no reason to say that without big government companies would be smaller.
You're darling. Look at you thinking a bunch of weekend warriors with rifles are going to do anything against a modern military (except get shot).
If you don't like being oppressed, you need something more than "Freedom". You need economic security. The reason those people don't speak out is they're just barely hanging on (Seriously. Studies shows less than 50% of Americans could weather a $1000 critical expense). That's real oppression. You want security? You need health care a guaranteed right and basic income to weather tough times when the rich crash our economy. The trouble with Libertarians is all they get is paradise
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/