True, although not totally irrelevant to the question of government. If laws contained clear statements of intent in the comments then it would be much easier to judge whether they were working and either repeal or amend the ones that weren't...
The root problem isn't the laws. Those are a symptom.
You must go deeper. To the underlying governmental/societal "operating system", the "source code" for which, in the US, could be thought of as being the US Constitution.
The root cause IMHO is that there have, for many decades, been unauthorized, undocumented, untested/un-debugged, code additions, modifications, work-arounds, bypasses, backdoors, rewrites, and deletions being made and inserted by various groups of rogue hackers to the core governmental/societal OS "production" system code, inserted covertly from outside the "official" project development/maintenance structure.
Unfortunately, until very recently, nobody has bothered to check error logs...as a matter of fact, quite to the contrary, many have, and continue with increasing force, to attempt to delete or rewrite portions for their own benefit or their flavor of ideological beliefs.
Seems to me it's far, far past time for a serious code audit and re-validation. It's also far past time to make some major personnel performance and security audits and replacements as well.
Writing "The People" in uppercase does not make what you say true. If you want to make changes to the political and judicial establishment, you are free to by persuading the voting public.
I wrote "The People" as a allusion to how it is written in the Constitution to communicate that the Constitution puts people over government, and empowers The People with the right to not only change the government by vote, but when that fails due to government ignoring the results of such a vote, or refusing to allow a vote, or otherwise ignore the will of The People, to remove it by any means necessary including force. I would argue the majority of the voting public is ready to make those changes. It's now up to the government to decide how it wants this to go down, hard or easy.
I guess you missed the part in my post that said transfer payments are necessary in a monetary union due to the inherent disparity in economic power and growth of states in such an arrangment, and the inability of such states to find equilibrium because they do not have control of their own monetary policy.
Let's get this straight. There are no "transfer payments" as such between the Federal government and the States. There is no provision for such a Federal power in the Constitution, therefor it would require a Constitutional Amendment be added, which is extremely unlikely to occur.
"Despite considerable differences in the abilities of states to generate revenues, there is no federal program in the United States that aims explicitly at reducing the disparities in state fiscal capacity."
And would you care to back up to your claims that private enterprise is the *only* place that wealth distribution should occur?
Wealth (re)distribution by government distorts and destroys a free market and Capitalist economy over time. A Capitalist, free-market economy depends on private sector distribution of wealth in order to function. Government generates no wealth, only consumes it, so it has to first confiscate wealth. The US capitalist economy functions only so long as there is a relatively free and fair market. Forcibly removing wealth that would otherwise go to capital to finance existing and start new businesses hinders that process, and removing wealth selectively destroys a free market.
Wealth distribution by the private sector in the US produces the greatest growth, generation of wealth, best efficiency, and fairest outcomes as compared to any other system yet tried on a comparable scale. It's why the US became the world's greatest superpower in under 200 years from it's founding, and why people from nearly every part of the world dream of coming to the US. They know that it's the one place where someone with nothing can create wealth and raise themselves from poverty to riches.
Sorry. There is a very specific meaning to negative liberty and your assertions simply do not fit with your choice of words. Negative liberties are rights for individuals to be free from control of others. This is the accepted meaning in both philosophy and jurisprudence; and hence not really related to the acutal machinery or process of government itself. The term was popularized by Isaiah Berlin back in the 60s but can be traced back much further to the works of Immanuel Kant in which he examines the different "senses" of freedom back in the 16th century.
By whatever terminology you wish to call it, individual Rights spelled out in the Constitution are not an exclusive list. Articles outlining the duties and powers of the Federal government, however, *are* an exclusive list, and any power not listed belongs to either States or The People as individuals.
I don't claim to be a Constitutional scholar. However, I'm 54 and I've seen the extremely destructive effec
Your argument that you should be able to do whatever you want if you can pay for it is tantamount to saying that you should be able to consume all of the Earth's resources and ruin someone else's neighborhood if you can afford it.
As Colonel Potter would say; "Horse cookies!".
Nobody said anything about another person's property. As far as "consume all of the Earth's resources", that's another load of horse cookies, sold to the gullible in order for those who desire wealth at others expense and power over others to obtain and keep it.
The Earth's resources will eventually run out. We can either take tiny bits until they are eventually exhausted and then allow civilization to collapse, never to rise again because of lack of resources, or we can take advantage of their current abundance and use them to achieve a sophisticated enough level of civilization & technology to allow humans to gather resources from off-planet, eventually moving nearly all harmful and destructive resource-gathering and manufacturing to off-planet.
It's akin to being trapped underwater in a malfunctioning submarine. We can either sit and try to breathe slowly and eventually die when the air runs out, or we can use the remaining air to swim to the surface.
You're welcome to make yourself a permanent guest at Davy Jone's Locker if you like, the rest of us are swimming to the surface.
Second, it's not going to be difficult to sell the ideas you mention in America, as most of them have already been sold and are in effect or going into effect soon.
Those failed ideological ideas have been sold to a loud, ignorant, violent, and selfish minority by corrupt politicians wishing to increase their own power and wealth while removing freedoms and wealth from the citizenry, but there's been an ideological sea-change in the US. Those politicians who advocate for such ideas are going to find themselves increasingly unemployed and/or prosecuted.
Third, While an incandescent light bulb is not a toxic chemical, It uses more electricity. Our current power generation produces toxic chemicals along with electricity and along with the extraction of energy rich chemicals from the Earth. So there is a slippery slope between inefficient light bulbs and toxins.
One of the measures of efficiency is the ability to compete favorably against existing technology in a free market. If the technology was efficient enough, it could compete without any government intervention as it would be a better deal and people would buy those instead of the old bulbs voluntarily. This idea is embodied in my sig below. If the ideas were so great, they wouldn't need to be mandatory.
Your concept of a free society seems to be one where everyone can do absolutely anything they please.
They can, right up until it infringes on another person's individual rights. That was the way it was in the US up until the Progressive movement took hold, after Liberalism was discredited and they changed their name to Progressive to avoid ostracism for their failed ideas and policies. History is once again repeating itself, as Progressivism has generally been discredited among the majority of people in the US. I guess it's time to make up a new name for the same old failed ideology.
The interpretation of the written document is what is important - not the interpretation of you or me, but the interpretation of the courts and the political establishment.
No, in the US, as it was laid out in the Constitution, the will (and therefor the interpretation of the Constitution) of The People is what is important, as government and those that work for it are servants of The People. That this relationship has been turned on it's head is one of the greatest problems facing the US, and what is likely to be the root cause of an uprising by The People to replace those in power and reform the government so as to reestablish the role of servants, submissive to the Constitution and The People, for those in government.
The constitution is not a list of negative liberties. In fact, most of the constitution are articles defining the process and operation of government.
In this context it is still a statement of negative liberties, as those definitions describe the only powers and functions allowed to government, and anything not expressly listed is prohibited. Yet another area where the relationship between Government and The People has been wrongly turned on it's head.
On weath redistribution, you were confusing wealth distribution between states, and between different demographics. When government functions, it redistributes wealth, money goes in, and then it goes out to different people, you can't avoid that, that's redistribution between demographics. In fact, private enterprises redistributes wealth as well in essence- you might think you have a choice in the private sector, but I can give you many examples in which it doesn't. Natural monopolies and cartels for example redistributes wealth and people dont' usually have a choice - without any government aid or assistance.
Whether it be between the States or The People, wealth redistribution is unconstitutional. Just like individuals, States must stand or fall economically on their own. Just as with individuals, were this not so there would be no reason to behave in an economically-sound manner, as both individuals and States could rely on being bailed out by others when unwise decisions are made and avoid negative consequences for foolish behavior. This is yet another area where government acts unconstitutionally to the detriment of the nation and The People. What we have now is a system in which the Federal government takes in taxes a huge amount of wealth from the individuals of each State and doles out some portion back to State governments under conditions amounting to blackmail, when the States should be keeping that wealth to spend on their own infrastructure and programs as the citizens of each State see fit. Instead that wealth is used as blackmail to force States to cave to the wishes of the Federal government or face eventual bankruptcy and collapse. Please read the Federalist Papers for more on this and other subjects pertaining to Federal powers and limitations.
Private enterprise is where wealth distribution and wealth creation both occur. It is not the function of the Federal government to redistribute wealth between States, just as it is not the function of *any* part of government to redistribute wealth among individual citizens. There is no Constitutional authority for doing so. It is outside the powers granted the Federal government and thus unconstitutional. This is yet another cause of the US' domestic economic problems.
Implemented two days ago? Public consults until March? Boycott the law?
Nobody Expects The Spanish InConfusion!
I agree, TFS is immensely confusing, at least for non-Spanish citizens, and lacks any contextual clues. It's like a very bad translation of an article meant only for Spanish domestic consumption where many assumptions are made about the target audience's previous knowledge of the subject and the Spanish domestic political/legal landscape and legal/legislative procedures.
It reads a lot like Japanese instruction manuals from years back that had almost completely indecipherable English translations, many of which were quite humorous, but unfortunately very unhelpful.
The constitution (of the US) is not the be all and end all of government.
It is for the US government. It is the founding document that contains the core principles and limitations of US government. Without it there is no structure or rule of law.
In fact, the constitution that you have written down is only the constitutional document, the real constitution is the structure and rules of government in practice that are acceptable by the political and judicial establishments.
Not according to the US Constitution. Any laws, rules, and/or regulations must fall within the restrictions placed on the powers of government by the US Constitution. It is a list of negative liberties, i.e. it describes only what the government is allowed to do, and anything that does not fall within one of the powers delegated to government by the Constitution is prohibited to government.
Not to mention the founders of the US lived in a completely different economic era and economic as a discipline was only in its infancy when the US was founded. Oh, and one more thing, monetary policy has changed drastically over the centuries.
I've heard this "they were too primitive to understand the current modern world" argument before, and it's no more valid now than it was then. The Founders were quite aware that times change and they incorporated a method for updating the Constitution, the Constitutional Amendment process. It's been amended quite a few times already. I'd argue that the unconstitutional actions taken by the government are largely what is to blame for our current political and economic woes.
Your last point about federal fiscal policy is confusing. You do realise that without this wealth distribution the monetary union would not survive in a modern economy? You will end up with the same situation as the EU is in now.
We are already headed down the same path as the EU is now. If US economic and government spending policies aren't changed dramatically and soon, the US will be Greece in probably less than 4 years, no more than six.
Wealth redistribution by the government has never worked out well. It's one of the reasons why the EU is in economic trouble, and is one of the major contributing factors to US economic troubles. Failure to allow businesses to fail through the use of "bail-outs" and other similar government actions that "save" businesses that should fail and thus allow that capital to return to the system to be reinvested in other business, hinders the availability and increases the cost of capital to finance existing businesses and start new businesses.
Directing growth is a necessary goal of government when economic crises threaten to pull a country apart.
Then it should be added to the Constitution. That it has never been argues against your view. It also depends on your definition of "directing growth".
If you meant it in the sense of assuring a sound monetary policy and keeping growth-limiting government interference in check, then yes, I agree. If you meant in the sense of propping up businesses that are unsound and cannot survive without government help, then no, I most certainly do not agree, and neither did the Founders.
The US, for example, has to make transfer payment through federal fiscal policy that redistributes wealth from the stronger economies of New York, Texas and California, etc. to states that are financially weak, such as Kentucky and Mississippi.
Which is totally unconstitutional and part of the problem, as it prevents natural economic forces from moderating the states' fiscal and spending policies. Redistribution of wealth has never worked out as ostensibly intended and always ends badly for citizens.
Quotes are intrinsically appeals to authority rather than intelligent argument...
Then you're missing much of the value of quotes when they make a salient point regardless of who said it first, which the quote in question does.
...the quote in question is snappy but ultimately meaningless, the government controls the military so even if you have a hypothetical small government they will always have the power to take things from you via the police or the judiciary.
Which is why there are mechanisms in the Constitution for removing those in office, including the 2nd Amendment. It's the "four boxes in defense of Liberty".
All libertarians...
"No true Scotsman"?
All libertarians seem to forget a government is comprised of people, they do not become a hive mind, why do you think the phrase "activist judge" exists?
Small "L" libertarians are quite aware that government is comprised of people...people who are subject to the same greed, avarice, power-lust, stupidity, and ignorance as everyone else. This is why government should be allowed only the bare-minimum power necessary to accomplish *only* those things spelled out in the Constitution.
Government, like fire, must be tightly restrained & controlled, and for much the same reasons. History clearly shows that it is the nature of all government, because of human nature, to seek to increase it's power, wealth, size, and control over ever-more of it's citizens' activities, wealth, freedoms, and even thoughts.
I wasn't dismissing your post I was highlighting your hypocrisy about "ignorance and intellectual laziness" when you committed exactly the same crime.
Yes, because a single accidentally wrongly-attributed quote is exactly the same as whole screeds written out of ignorance and intellectual laziness.
It seems like you are looking for any excuse to ignore and dismiss the points made rather than post a reasoned rebuttal, which would tend to buttress my point regarding intellectual laziness.
Thanks for the backup, although I doubt doing so was your intention.
I didn't say it was illegal. OP pointed out that occupy rallies were more violent (though the ones I watched on tv didn't appear to be so), but isn't bringing a gun to a rally slightly more dangerous?
Not necessarily. Many openly carry a firearm as a matter of course on a daily basis, and do so without incident. Well, except for harassment by uninformed/undereducated LEOs.
Mob mentalities being what they are.
Seeing as TEA Party rallies have been well-organized and extremely peaceful and well-behaved, even cleaning up behind themselves, I wouldn't count them as a "mob".
You can't use a gun that you don't have with you.
Which to my mind is a strong argument for having a gun readily available for as much of one's daily activities as possible.
And why would you bring a gun to a rally unless you either intended to use it or wanted to scare someone with it.
For the same reasons peaceful and law-abiding citizens carry a gun out and about on any random day, and why the Second Amendment is included in the Constitution. Bringing your personal legal firearm is also a show of support for 2nd Amendment rights which have been under assault.
>Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. - Thomas Jefferson
>To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them. - George Madison
>Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoplesâ(TM) libertyâ(TM)s teeth. - George Washington
>The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference--they deserve a place of honor with all that is good. - George Washington
...the very presence of the guns would amplify the tension.
Governments and their agents always prefer an unarmed populace. That they feel tension and possibly fear toward those who exercise their Constitutional right to own and openly carry a firearm is poor reason to disarm oneself.
Have you any idea how complex the U.S. government is? The whole idea that it or its "leaders" share anything like goals of power and wealth is silly.
No, the idea that those who have invested huge sums of money and years of work into obtaining large amounts of wealth and/or power, whether in government or the private sector, don't desire to increase the amount of either or both they own/control is "silly", and completely ignores basic human nature.
The SS administration has the hardest job, they have to deal with Americans who stupid conspiratorial views like yours.
Calling my views "stupid" and "conspiratorial", particularly in a poorly-constructed sentence, certainly refutes & invalidates all my points. GG
Fiscal policy is one way to direct growth in the economy.
"Directing" growth in the economy is not the job of the Federal government according to the Constitution. It causes too many unintended consequences as well as creates far too much corruption.
Back to fiscal policy, the problem with the US is not that it is spending too much (compared to other advanced economies).
That would depend on one's definition of "advanced economy". Looking at the current growing fiscal crisis in the EU, I don't think following their example is a smart move.
In total the US spends nearly 16% of GDP on heathcare. The UK for example, spends only 8% on its healthcare system that covers everybody, at all ages.
The US also does the most in creating and advancing new medical technologies, treatments, and drugs which all increase healthcare costs. There's also the question of comparative quality of care.
Yes, well that label does apply rather well to you, since you blindly copied and pasted all that from somewhere without any checking or thought, proved by the fact that the 2nd quote attributed to Jefferson was actually said by Gerald Ford, yes that intellectual titan.
Yes, because a single disputed quote totally discredits everything else that was posted and discredits the quote in questions' validity as well. Is said quote factually incorrect outside of attribution? Does bigger government mean better government?
Nice job finding one minor thing to focus upon in order to justify in your mind dismissing the entire post. That's certainly much easier and requires much less in the way of actual thought.
Anyway, that's off topic. What really bugs me is the whole "selling us to China" meme. What percent of public debt do you think china owns? 50%? 75%? The answer, if Wikipedia is right (and maybe it isn't, but I'm going to ask for a citation if you think so) was 8%, or about a trillion dollars, as of may 2011. The U.K., not for nothing, held over 900 billion dollars as well but I rarely see the same self-induced hypoxia over that. Isn't "selling the entire nation to the Chinese" a rather hysterical instance of sinophobic alarmism?
Well, if China, who owns the largest percentage of foreign-held US debt, suddenly dumped all or even a significant fraction of the US Treasury instruments of debt they hold, the results wouldn't be good for the US economy or the Dollar. Such a move by the Chinese would likely also trigger other foreign holders of US debt to dump their holdings as well. That Sword of Damocles gives the Chinese a lot of power over the US.
Be careful with those Founding Fathers quotes, or people will label you a Libertarian, Crank, or Ronulan.
Which says more about the ignorance and intellectual laziness of such people who are quick to attach convenient labels in order to dismiss opinions that they disagree with but are incapable of expressing why, than it does about my opinions.
I read Strat's post and found myself agreeing, kind of, and then I read yours and realized it's really a matter of Occam's razor. The chinese government is corrupt, the chinese government controls (at least to a degree) the chinese market, and IBM wants to make some *money*. Thanks for bringing me back from the edge!
I would argue that IBM shares the same goals as those in power in the US government, so the comparison is valid. Those goals being power and wealth, which are simply two faces of the same coin. If you have plenty of one, you can obtain the other.
Whoa whoa whoa, first off, IBM did this years before Obama...
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the things I described have only occurred recently, when in fact it's been a trend that has been accelerating for many decades.
...before Obama spent all the money on companies which the people needed to exist or they would totally rely on the government for money and help.
Wait, what? By that logic the people are made dependent on the government either way. Having the government direct the "money and help" through a third party doesn't change anything, except for increasing the levels of corruption in both the government and private sector. Never mind the fact that the government has no business giving/loaning taxpayer money to private business simply to prop them up if they would otherwise not exist. Doing so distorts and eventually destroys the free market and twists capitalism into a corrupt and extremely destructive amalgam of socialism and fascism.
"If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy. - Thomas Jefferson"
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you have. - Thomas Jefferson
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. - Thomas Jefferson
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. - Thomas Jefferson
Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. - James Madison
The Utopian schemes of re-distribution of the wealth...are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the Crown. - Samuel Adams
The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself. - Benjamin Franklin
In the main it will be found that a power over a man's support (salary) is a power over his will. - Alexander Hamilton
For once, a CEO thought beyond the next quarterly report. Be careful what you complain about.
Hey, he's only following the example set by the US government.
The only difference is that the US government is selling the entire nation to the Chinese in the form of borrowing/debt to finance out of control spending on programs designed to produce citizens dependent on government for survival in order to help insure election/reelection with promises of more "free stuff", while simultaneously increasing their power over the populace in general through increasing control of ever more aspects of everyday life with ever-more intrusive and choice-limiting laws & regulations, government control of entire sectors of the economy, and the constant threat of removal of the "free stuff".
>> Your knee-jerk leap to a foul-mouthed implication of an ulterior motive to his or her post is inappropriate.
> You must be new here.
I've been around long enough to get the running joke, and find it amusng.
Still, though, I feel like replying:
Not only am I not new here, I have frequently succumbed to the urge to spew some vitriol at someone I disagreed with. I'm fairly confident that I will again in the future. No, I'm not new to that experience from either side of the exchange, nor as a bystander.
But I am trying to make it better. I'm trying to be better myself, and trying to find ways to communicate that message to our community, to make it stronger.
See, the thing is, I've been thinking about social networks, and about how our society is being usurped by manipulative bastards in industry and government. Same forces as have existed for thousands of years, I guess, but this is my now. It seems to me the only way we can beat them is by ganging together with other rationalists and communicating. Then it hits me that this community, Slashdot, is already a powerful force in that space. Makes me want to find ways to be a better community member, and to help others see the same thing. Even if only by tiny steps.
Honestly I think he meant it in the general sense referring to anyone who would park there when they did not have a disability that necessitated parking close to the door. I don't think he meant the parent poster. A friend of mine has MS. On a good day he parks in a normal spot. On a bad day that 100 feet can mean all the difference in the world.
Honestly, all *I* meant was to note the irony contained in the post I replied to, as a "knee-jerk leap to a foul-mouthed implication of an ulterior motive is an all-too frequent occurrence on/..
Apparently it's still enough to earn a "Flamebait" mod.
The proper modern social democrat thing to do would have been to gone to a single payer model where there was no private health insurance. Then the rates would be so low that only the completely indigent or stupid wouldn't pay it but they would be covered by the automatic subsidy and base line level of service.
I can understand why someone might hold that view. However, you need to take into account the nature of government-run...well...practically anything to do with providing services to the population. Just look at the USPS or AMTRAK for quick examples. Public services rarely ever break even or serve their customers as well as a private-sector business can. Being government-run also tends to stifle innovation and thinking "outside the box".
One thing that would immensely improve the current system is to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. This would bring competition that would encourage the best-quality services at the lowest rates.
One of the bigger problems I see is the very nature of government bureaucracies and the consequences of their effects when applied to healthcare. Without competition as a motivator there is little incentive for making healthcare services better/faster/cheaper or improve how people are treated when there are no alternatives if they aren't treated well. Also, that being a government-run and taxpayer paid-for service would necessarily mean that bureaucrats would determine how much money may be spent on each patient and for which and how much services, forcing a "one-size-fits-all" model on a field that is so individual in nature in the needs of those served.
And that's just scratching the surface. There are far more problems in addition those I can list here in a Slashdot post.
What about so many other things that have been removed from the market that you can no longer purchase. Lead based paint - can't get it any more. Maybe you want to buy some baby bottles with Bisphenol A? Can't do it in some countries. Maybe you got a bug problem and want to start spraying DDT all over. Sorry it's banned.
You are saying that removal of choice, even when that choice is damaging to you or the world around you, is tyranny. I'm sorry if I don't think it's cruel and oppressive when the majority of people decide that something should be phased out for the public good.
Yeah, because banning deadly poisons and birth-defect-causing ingredients from the food supply is totally like preventing a child from having the bulb replaced in her Easy-Bake Oven or preventing consumers from replacing the bulbs in CFL-uncompatible lamps, lighting fixtures, and even some electrical/electronic test equipment they own and paid good money for.
I use a simple in-house-built incandescent light bulb AC power current limiter on my electronics repair bench for use as a low-cost "safe startup tool" due to an incandescent lamp's inherent electrical behavior, so as to safely start up AC-powered electronic equipment in for work. Replacing it with an equivalent alternative that is much, much more costly means I must charge more for repairs to recover the cost.
You need to either get with that idea, or come up with some real reasons why we should continue using old efficiency light bulbs. "Because, I want to" is not a valid argument.
Yes, yes it is. When it comes to things like what light bulbs I decide to use when I pay for both the bulbs and the electric bill, what toilet and shower head I use when I pay for those items and the water bill, "because I want to" is all the reason I need and the only argument that counts in a free society.
It seems your problem isn't with light bulbs or high-flow toilets and shower heads, it's with a free society and individual freedom of choice. You're going to have a hard time selling those ideas in a country like America that was founded around the idea and principle of a free society and individual freedom of choice.
No, that's a corrupt government that exercises unconstitutional powers, and attempts to influence what businesses (typically politically-connected) succeed or fail, for you.
Capitalism, if there were actually much of it left in the US, would tend to moderate such tendencies to want to lock down computing and the internet as those actors would lose money and power as users chose alternate products and services. Instead, government interferes to prevent that happening by removing choices. Tyranny can be well-described as the removal of choice.
To conflate what exists currently in the US with Capitalism operating in a relatively fair and free, moderately but fairly-regulated, moderately & evenly taxed market that provides a relatively-even playing field for business and entrepreneurs is ingenuous and intellectually dishonest at best.
The US didn't achieve the highest standard of living to ever exist, even for the poor, the most individual freedom ever known for even the poorest, nor achieve ultimate superpower status because Americans are somehow different than any other people. It's been Capitalism that's been allowed to flourish unfettered to as great an extent as possible while still curbing the most serious abuses.
Not to say Capitalism is without problems and challenges to making it work well. Capitalism is the worst system ever tried...except for every other system ever tried. By quite a wide margin, I might add.
History shows us that:
>Capitalism is the only system ever created where wealth is a renewable resource for everyone from the poorest to the richest as long as they are willing to work and/or come up with an idea, skill/talent, or invention that's useful or of other value to someone else. It doesn't "divide the pie" where if one gets richer, another gets poorer. Capitalism is a bakery that makes more pies. It generates wealth that didn't previously exist.
>Capitalism has raised more people from poverty and provided a higher standard of living for more people than any other system ever created.
>Capitalism has allowed more people to live in freedom than any other system ever invented.
>Capitalism has allowed the US to provide more humanitarian assistance to those in need both domestically and around the world than any other system or country in history.
Painting Capitalism as the bogey-man for what is occurring politically and economically completely and totally ignores these facts backed by history.
C'mon...be reasonable in your arguments and keep it apples to apples, eh?
But...but...how do you expect him to win the argument if he has to play it all fair and even....and...and stuff? Smoking baaaad! (yes, we know...so is excessive masturbation to internet porn, but I don't think you'll get any traction with the/. crowd on banning that one!).
America should be broken up into several countries, with no overbearing power-hungry Federal government to fuck things up.
America used to be like that, with many strong and relatively independent country-like entities called States, with a small and weak Federal government to do those things only a national government can do, like negotiate treaties, provide common defense against foreign aggressors, and control/defend the national borders.. It's how the Constitution was written and how it was until the Civil War/Lincoln, FDR, and Wilson, continuing into the more recent administrations, morphed it into just the opposite and centralized most government power.
Instead of redrawing all the maps, I think it would be simpler and easier to just return the Federal government back to the Constitutionally-limited & weak central government it used to be.
Slashdot Mirror
True, although not totally irrelevant to the question of government. If laws contained clear statements of intent in the comments then it would be much easier to judge whether they were working and either repeal or amend the ones that weren't...
The root problem isn't the laws. Those are a symptom.
You must go deeper. To the underlying governmental/societal "operating system", the "source code" for which, in the US, could be thought of as being the US Constitution.
The root cause IMHO is that there have, for many decades, been unauthorized, undocumented, untested/un-debugged, code additions, modifications, work-arounds, bypasses, backdoors, rewrites, and deletions being made and inserted by various groups of rogue hackers to the core governmental/societal OS "production" system code, inserted covertly from outside the "official" project development/maintenance structure.
Unfortunately, until very recently, nobody has bothered to check error logs...as a matter of fact, quite to the contrary, many have, and continue with increasing force, to attempt to delete or rewrite portions for their own benefit or their flavor of ideological beliefs.
Seems to me it's far, far past time for a serious code audit and re-validation. It's also far past time to make some major personnel performance and security audits and replacements as well.
Strat
Writing "The People" in uppercase does not make what you say true. If you want to make changes to the political and judicial establishment, you are free to by persuading the voting public.
I wrote "The People" as a allusion to how it is written in the Constitution to communicate that the Constitution puts people over government, and empowers The People with the right to not only change the government by vote, but when that fails due to government ignoring the results of such a vote, or refusing to allow a vote, or otherwise ignore the will of The People, to remove it by any means necessary including force. I would argue the majority of the voting public is ready to make those changes. It's now up to the government to decide how it wants this to go down, hard or easy.
I guess you missed the part in my post that said transfer payments are necessary in a monetary union due to the inherent disparity in economic power and growth of states in such an arrangment, and the inability of such states to find equilibrium because they do not have control of their own monetary policy.
Let's get this straight. There are no "transfer payments" as such between the Federal government and the States. There is no provision for such a Federal power in the Constitution, therefor it would require a Constitutional Amendment be added, which is extremely unlikely to occur.
"Despite considerable differences in the abilities of states to generate revenues, there is no federal program in the United States that aims explicitly at reducing the disparities in state fiscal capacity."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equalization_payments#United_States
And would you care to back up to your claims that private enterprise is the *only* place that wealth distribution should occur?
Wealth (re)distribution by government distorts and destroys a free market and Capitalist economy over time. A Capitalist, free-market economy depends on private sector distribution of wealth in order to function. Government generates no wealth, only consumes it, so it has to first confiscate wealth. The US capitalist economy functions only so long as there is a relatively free and fair market. Forcibly removing wealth that would otherwise go to capital to finance existing and start new businesses hinders that process, and removing wealth selectively destroys a free market.
Wealth distribution by the private sector in the US produces the greatest growth, generation of wealth, best efficiency, and fairest outcomes as compared to any other system yet tried on a comparable scale. It's why the US became the world's greatest superpower in under 200 years from it's founding, and why people from nearly every part of the world dream of coming to the US. They know that it's the one place where someone with nothing can create wealth and raise themselves from poverty to riches.
Sorry. There is a very specific meaning to negative liberty and your assertions simply do not fit with your choice of words. Negative liberties are rights for individuals to be free from control of others. This is the accepted meaning in both philosophy and jurisprudence; and hence not really related to the acutal machinery or process of government itself. The term was popularized by Isaiah Berlin back in the 60s but can be traced back much further to the works of Immanuel Kant in which he examines the different "senses" of freedom back in the 16th century.
By whatever terminology you wish to call it, individual Rights spelled out in the Constitution are not an exclusive list. Articles outlining the duties and powers of the Federal government, however, *are* an exclusive list, and any power not listed belongs to either States or The People as individuals.
I don't claim to be a Constitutional scholar. However, I'm 54 and I've seen the extremely destructive effec
Your argument that you should be able to do whatever you want if you can pay for it is tantamount to saying that you should be able to consume all of the Earth's resources and ruin someone else's neighborhood if you can afford it.
As Colonel Potter would say; "Horse cookies!".
Nobody said anything about another person's property. As far as "consume all of the Earth's resources", that's another load of horse cookies, sold to the gullible in order for those who desire wealth at others expense and power over others to obtain and keep it.
The Earth's resources will eventually run out. We can either take tiny bits until they are eventually exhausted and then allow civilization to collapse, never to rise again because of lack of resources, or we can take advantage of their current abundance and use them to achieve a sophisticated enough level of civilization & technology to allow humans to gather resources from off-planet, eventually moving nearly all harmful and destructive resource-gathering and manufacturing to off-planet.
It's akin to being trapped underwater in a malfunctioning submarine. We can either sit and try to breathe slowly and eventually die when the air runs out, or we can use the remaining air to swim to the surface.
You're welcome to make yourself a permanent guest at Davy Jone's Locker if you like, the rest of us are swimming to the surface.
Second, it's not going to be difficult to sell the ideas you mention in America, as most of them have already been sold and are in effect or going into effect soon.
Those failed ideological ideas have been sold to a loud, ignorant, violent, and selfish minority by corrupt politicians wishing to increase their own power and wealth while removing freedoms and wealth from the citizenry, but there's been an ideological sea-change in the US. Those politicians who advocate for such ideas are going to find themselves increasingly unemployed and/or prosecuted.
Third, While an incandescent light bulb is not a toxic chemical, It uses more electricity. Our current power generation produces toxic chemicals along with electricity and along with the extraction of energy rich chemicals from the Earth. So there is a slippery slope between inefficient light bulbs and toxins.
One of the measures of efficiency is the ability to compete favorably against existing technology in a free market. If the technology was efficient enough, it could compete without any government intervention as it would be a better deal and people would buy those instead of the old bulbs voluntarily. This idea is embodied in my sig below. If the ideas were so great, they wouldn't need to be mandatory.
Your concept of a free society seems to be one where everyone can do absolutely anything they please.
They can, right up until it infringes on another person's individual rights. That was the way it was in the US up until the Progressive movement took hold, after Liberalism was discredited and they changed their name to Progressive to avoid ostracism for their failed ideas and policies. History is once again repeating itself, as Progressivism has generally been discredited among the majority of people in the US. I guess it's time to make up a new name for the same old failed ideology.
Strat
The interpretation of the written document is what is important - not the interpretation of you or me, but the interpretation of the courts and the political establishment.
No, in the US, as it was laid out in the Constitution, the will (and therefor the interpretation of the Constitution) of The People is what is important, as government and those that work for it are servants of The People. That this relationship has been turned on it's head is one of the greatest problems facing the US, and what is likely to be the root cause of an uprising by The People to replace those in power and reform the government so as to reestablish the role of servants, submissive to the Constitution and The People, for those in government.
The constitution is not a list of negative liberties. In fact, most of the constitution are articles defining the process and operation of government.
In this context it is still a statement of negative liberties, as those definitions describe the only powers and functions allowed to government, and anything not expressly listed is prohibited. Yet another area where the relationship between Government and The People has been wrongly turned on it's head.
On weath redistribution, you were confusing wealth distribution between states, and between different demographics. When government functions, it redistributes wealth, money goes in, and then it goes out to different people, you can't avoid that, that's redistribution between demographics. In fact, private enterprises redistributes wealth as well in essence- you might think you have a choice in the private sector, but I can give you many examples in which it doesn't. Natural monopolies and cartels for example redistributes wealth and people dont' usually have a choice - without any government aid or assistance.
Whether it be between the States or The People, wealth redistribution is unconstitutional. Just like individuals, States must stand or fall economically on their own. Just as with individuals, were this not so there would be no reason to behave in an economically-sound manner, as both individuals and States could rely on being bailed out by others when unwise decisions are made and avoid negative consequences for foolish behavior. This is yet another area where government acts unconstitutionally to the detriment of the nation and The People. What we have now is a system in which the Federal government takes in taxes a huge amount of wealth from the individuals of each State and doles out some portion back to State governments under conditions amounting to blackmail, when the States should be keeping that wealth to spend on their own infrastructure and programs as the citizens of each State see fit. Instead that wealth is used as blackmail to force States to cave to the wishes of the Federal government or face eventual bankruptcy and collapse. Please read the Federalist Papers for more on this and other subjects pertaining to Federal powers and limitations.
Private enterprise is where wealth distribution and wealth creation both occur. It is not the function of the Federal government to redistribute wealth between States, just as it is not the function of *any* part of government to redistribute wealth among individual citizens. There is no Constitutional authority for doing so. It is outside the powers granted the Federal government and thus unconstitutional. This is yet another cause of the US' domestic economic problems.
Strat
Implemented two days ago? Public consults until March? Boycott the law?
Nobody Expects The Spanish InConfusion!
I agree, TFS is immensely confusing, at least for non-Spanish citizens, and lacks any contextual clues. It's like a very bad translation of an article meant only for Spanish domestic consumption where many assumptions are made about the target audience's previous knowledge of the subject and the Spanish domestic political/legal landscape and legal/legislative procedures.
It reads a lot like Japanese instruction manuals from years back that had almost completely indecipherable English translations, many of which were quite humorous, but unfortunately very unhelpful.
Strat
The constitution (of the US) is not the be all and end all of government.
It is for the US government. It is the founding document that contains the core principles and limitations of US government. Without it there is no structure or rule of law.
In fact, the constitution that you have written down is only the constitutional document, the real constitution is the structure and rules of government in practice that are acceptable by the political and judicial establishments.
Not according to the US Constitution. Any laws, rules, and/or regulations must fall within the restrictions placed on the powers of government by the US Constitution. It is a list of negative liberties, i.e. it describes only what the government is allowed to do, and anything that does not fall within one of the powers delegated to government by the Constitution is prohibited to government.
Not to mention the founders of the US lived in a completely different economic era and economic as a discipline was only in its infancy when the US was founded. Oh, and one more thing, monetary policy has changed drastically over the centuries.
I've heard this "they were too primitive to understand the current modern world" argument before, and it's no more valid now than it was then. The Founders were quite aware that times change and they incorporated a method for updating the Constitution, the Constitutional Amendment process. It's been amended quite a few times already. I'd argue that the unconstitutional actions taken by the government are largely what is to blame for our current political and economic woes.
Your last point about federal fiscal policy is confusing. You do realise that without this wealth distribution the monetary union would not survive in a modern economy? You will end up with the same situation as the EU is in now.
We are already headed down the same path as the EU is now. If US economic and government spending policies aren't changed dramatically and soon, the US will be Greece in probably less than 4 years, no more than six.
Wealth redistribution by the government has never worked out well. It's one of the reasons why the EU is in economic trouble, and is one of the major contributing factors to US economic troubles. Failure to allow businesses to fail through the use of "bail-outs" and other similar government actions that "save" businesses that should fail and thus allow that capital to return to the system to be reinvested in other business, hinders the availability and increases the cost of capital to finance existing businesses and start new businesses.
Strat
Directing growth is a necessary goal of government when economic crises threaten to pull a country apart.
Then it should be added to the Constitution. That it has never been argues against your view. It also depends on your definition of "directing growth".
If you meant it in the sense of assuring a sound monetary policy and keeping growth-limiting government interference in check, then yes, I agree. If you meant in the sense of propping up businesses that are unsound and cannot survive without government help, then no, I most certainly do not agree, and neither did the Founders.
The US, for example, has to make transfer payment through federal fiscal policy that redistributes wealth from the stronger economies of New York, Texas and California, etc. to states that are financially weak, such as Kentucky and Mississippi.
Which is totally unconstitutional and part of the problem, as it prevents natural economic forces from moderating the states' fiscal and spending policies. Redistribution of wealth has never worked out as ostensibly intended and always ends badly for citizens.
Strat
Quotes are intrinsically appeals to authority rather than intelligent argument...
Then you're missing much of the value of quotes when they make a salient point regardless of who said it first, which the quote in question does.
...the quote in question is snappy but ultimately meaningless, the government controls the military so even if you have a hypothetical small government they will always have the power to take things from you via the police or the judiciary.
Which is why there are mechanisms in the Constitution for removing those in office, including the 2nd Amendment. It's the "four boxes in defense of Liberty".
All libertarians...
"No true Scotsman"?
All libertarians seem to forget a government is comprised of people, they do not become a hive mind, why do you think the phrase "activist judge" exists?
Small "L" libertarians are quite aware that government is comprised of people...people who are subject to the same greed, avarice, power-lust, stupidity, and ignorance as everyone else. This is why government should be allowed only the bare-minimum power necessary to accomplish *only* those things spelled out in the Constitution.
Government, like fire, must be tightly restrained & controlled, and for much the same reasons. History clearly shows that it is the nature of all government, because of human nature, to seek to increase it's power, wealth, size, and control over ever-more of it's citizens' activities, wealth, freedoms, and even thoughts.
I wasn't dismissing your post I was highlighting your hypocrisy about "ignorance and intellectual laziness" when you committed exactly the same crime.
Yes, because a single accidentally wrongly-attributed quote is exactly the same as whole screeds written out of ignorance and intellectual laziness.
It seems like you are looking for any excuse to ignore and dismiss the points made rather than post a reasoned rebuttal, which would tend to buttress my point regarding intellectual laziness.
Thanks for the backup, although I doubt doing so was your intention.
Strat
I didn't say it was illegal. OP pointed out that occupy rallies were more violent (though the ones I watched on tv didn't appear to be so), but isn't bringing a gun to a rally slightly more dangerous?
Not necessarily. Many openly carry a firearm as a matter of course on a daily basis, and do so without incident. Well, except for harassment by uninformed/undereducated LEOs.
Mob mentalities being what they are.
Seeing as TEA Party rallies have been well-organized and extremely peaceful and well-behaved, even cleaning up behind themselves, I wouldn't count them as a "mob".
You can't use a gun that you don't have with you.
Which to my mind is a strong argument for having a gun readily available for as much of one's daily activities as possible.
And why would you bring a gun to a rally unless you either intended to use it or wanted to scare someone with it.
For the same reasons peaceful and law-abiding citizens carry a gun out and about on any random day, and why the Second Amendment is included in the Constitution. Bringing your personal legal firearm is also a show of support for 2nd Amendment rights which have been under assault.
>Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. - Thomas Jefferson
>To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them. - George Madison
>Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoplesâ(TM) libertyâ(TM)s teeth. - George Washington
>The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference--they deserve a place of honor with all that is good. - George Washington
...the very presence of the guns would amplify the tension.
Governments and their agents always prefer an unarmed populace. That they feel tension and possibly fear toward those who exercise their Constitutional right to own and openly carry a firearm is poor reason to disarm oneself.
Strat
Have you any idea how complex the U.S. government is? The whole idea that it or its "leaders" share anything like goals of power and wealth is silly.
No, the idea that those who have invested huge sums of money and years of work into obtaining large amounts of wealth and/or power, whether in government or the private sector, don't desire to increase the amount of either or both they own/control is "silly", and completely ignores basic human nature.
The SS administration has the hardest job, they have to deal with Americans who stupid conspiratorial views like yours.
Calling my views "stupid" and "conspiratorial", particularly in a poorly-constructed sentence, certainly refutes & invalidates all my points. GG
Strat
Fiscal policy is one way to direct growth in the economy.
"Directing" growth in the economy is not the job of the Federal government according to the Constitution. It causes too many unintended consequences as well as creates far too much corruption.
Back to fiscal policy, the problem with the US is not that it is spending too much (compared to other advanced economies).
That would depend on one's definition of "advanced economy". Looking at the current growing fiscal crisis in the EU, I don't think following their example is a smart move.
In total the US spends nearly 16% of GDP on heathcare. The UK for example, spends only 8% on its healthcare system that covers everybody, at all ages.
The US also does the most in creating and advancing new medical technologies, treatments, and drugs which all increase healthcare costs. There's also the question of comparative quality of care.
Strat
ignorance and intellectual laziness
Yes, well that label does apply rather well to you, since you blindly copied and pasted all that from somewhere without any checking or thought, proved by the fact that the 2nd quote attributed to Jefferson was actually said by Gerald Ford, yes that intellectual titan.
Yes, because a single disputed quote totally discredits everything else that was posted and discredits the quote in questions' validity as well. Is said quote factually incorrect outside of attribution? Does bigger government mean better government?
Nice job finding one minor thing to focus upon in order to justify in your mind dismissing the entire post. That's certainly much easier and requires much less in the way of actual thought.
Strat
Anyway, that's off topic. What really bugs me is the whole "selling us to China" meme. What percent of public debt do you think china owns? 50%? 75%? The answer, if Wikipedia is right (and maybe it isn't, but I'm going to ask for a citation if you think so) was 8%, or about a trillion dollars, as of may 2011. The U.K., not for nothing, held over 900 billion dollars as well but I rarely see the same self-induced hypoxia over that. Isn't "selling the entire nation to the Chinese" a rather hysterical instance of sinophobic alarmism?
Well, if China, who owns the largest percentage of foreign-held US debt, suddenly dumped all or even a significant fraction of the US Treasury instruments of debt they hold, the results wouldn't be good for the US economy or the Dollar. Such a move by the Chinese would likely also trigger other foreign holders of US debt to dump their holdings as well. That Sword of Damocles gives the Chinese a lot of power over the US.
http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2011/08/pie-chart-of-who-owns-the-national-debt-mid-2011.html
The UK is a supposed ally, so there's not much worry that 10 Downing would take steps to purposely wreck the US economy.
Point being that it's not necessary to hold a majority of the total US debt to have the power to use that debt to do immense damage.
Be careful with those Founding Fathers quotes, or people will label you a Libertarian, Crank, or Ronulan.
Which says more about the ignorance and intellectual laziness of such people who are quick to attach convenient labels in order to dismiss opinions that they disagree with but are incapable of expressing why, than it does about my opinions.
Strat
I read Strat's post and found myself agreeing, kind of, and then I read yours and realized it's really a matter of Occam's razor. The chinese government is corrupt, the chinese government controls (at least to a degree) the chinese market, and IBM wants to make some *money*. Thanks for bringing me back from the edge!
I would argue that IBM shares the same goals as those in power in the US government, so the comparison is valid. Those goals being power and wealth, which are simply two faces of the same coin. If you have plenty of one, you can obtain the other.
Strat
Whoa whoa whoa, first off, IBM did this years before Obama...
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the things I described have only occurred recently, when in fact it's been a trend that has been accelerating for many decades.
...before Obama spent all the money on companies which the people needed to exist or they would totally rely on the government for money and help.
Wait, what? By that logic the people are made dependent on the government either way. Having the government direct the "money and help" through a third party doesn't change anything, except for increasing the levels of corruption in both the government and private sector. Never mind the fact that the government has no business giving/loaning taxpayer money to private business simply to prop them up if they would otherwise not exist. Doing so distorts and eventually destroys the free market and twists capitalism into a corrupt and extremely destructive amalgam of socialism and fascism.
"If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy. - Thomas Jefferson"
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you have. - Thomas Jefferson
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. - Thomas Jefferson
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. - Thomas Jefferson
Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. - James Madison
The Utopian schemes of re-distribution of the wealth...are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the Crown. - Samuel Adams
The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself. - Benjamin Franklin
In the main it will be found that a power over a man's support (salary) is a power over his will. - Alexander Hamilton
Strat
For once, a CEO thought beyond the next quarterly report. Be careful what you complain about.
Hey, he's only following the example set by the US government.
The only difference is that the US government is selling the entire nation to the Chinese in the form of borrowing/debt to finance out of control spending on programs designed to produce citizens dependent on government for survival in order to help insure election/reelection with promises of more "free stuff", while simultaneously increasing their power over the populace in general through increasing control of ever more aspects of everyday life with ever-more intrusive and choice-limiting laws & regulations, government control of entire sectors of the economy, and the constant threat of removal of the "free stuff".
Strat
Honestly, all *I* meant was to note the irony contained in the post I replied to, as a "knee-jerk leap to a foul-mouthed implication of an ulterior motive is an all-too frequent occurrence on /..
Apparently it's still enough to earn a "Flamebait" mod.
Strat
Your knee-jerk leap to a foul-mouthed implication of an ulterior motive to his or her post is inappropriate.
You must be new here.
Strat
You might well be eligible for a Dept. of Energy grant!
Strat
The proper modern social democrat thing to do would have been to gone to a single payer model where there was no private health insurance. Then the rates would be so low that only the completely indigent or stupid wouldn't pay it but they would be covered by the automatic subsidy and base line level of service.
I can understand why someone might hold that view. However, you need to take into account the nature of government-run...well...practically anything to do with providing services to the population. Just look at the USPS or AMTRAK for quick examples. Public services rarely ever break even or serve their customers as well as a private-sector business can. Being government-run also tends to stifle innovation and thinking "outside the box".
One thing that would immensely improve the current system is to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. This would bring competition that would encourage the best-quality services at the lowest rates.
One of the bigger problems I see is the very nature of government bureaucracies and the consequences of their effects when applied to healthcare. Without competition as a motivator there is little incentive for making healthcare services better/faster/cheaper or improve how people are treated when there are no alternatives if they aren't treated well. Also, that being a government-run and taxpayer paid-for service would necessarily mean that bureaucrats would determine how much money may be spent on each patient and for which and how much services, forcing a "one-size-fits-all" model on a field that is so individual in nature in the needs of those served.
And that's just scratching the surface. There are far more problems in addition those I can list here in a Slashdot post.
Strat
What about so many other things that have been removed from the market that you can no longer purchase. Lead based paint - can't get it any more. Maybe you want to buy some baby bottles with Bisphenol A? Can't do it in some countries. Maybe you got a bug problem and want to start spraying DDT all over. Sorry it's banned.
You are saying that removal of choice, even when that choice is damaging to you or the world around you, is tyranny. I'm sorry if I don't think it's cruel and oppressive when the majority of people decide that something should be phased out for the public good.
Yeah, because banning deadly poisons and birth-defect-causing ingredients from the food supply is totally like preventing a child from having the bulb replaced in her Easy-Bake Oven or preventing consumers from replacing the bulbs in CFL-uncompatible lamps, lighting fixtures, and even some electrical/electronic test equipment they own and paid good money for.
I use a simple in-house-built incandescent light bulb AC power current limiter on my electronics repair bench for use as a low-cost "safe startup tool" due to an incandescent lamp's inherent electrical behavior, so as to safely start up AC-powered electronic equipment in for work. Replacing it with an equivalent alternative that is much, much more costly means I must charge more for repairs to recover the cost.
You need to either get with that idea, or come up with some real reasons why we should continue using old efficiency light bulbs. "Because, I want to" is not a valid argument.
Yes, yes it is. When it comes to things like what light bulbs I decide to use when I pay for both the bulbs and the electric bill, what toilet and shower head I use when I pay for those items and the water bill, "because I want to" is all the reason I need and the only argument that counts in a free society.
It seems your problem isn't with light bulbs or high-flow toilets and shower heads, it's with a free society and individual freedom of choice. You're going to have a hard time selling those ideas in a country like America that was founded around the idea and principle of a free society and individual freedom of choice.
Strat
that's capitalism for you.
No, that's a corrupt government that exercises unconstitutional powers, and attempts to influence what businesses (typically politically-connected) succeed or fail, for you.
Capitalism, if there were actually much of it left in the US, would tend to moderate such tendencies to want to lock down computing and the internet as those actors would lose money and power as users chose alternate products and services. Instead, government interferes to prevent that happening by removing choices. Tyranny can be well-described as the removal of choice.
To conflate what exists currently in the US with Capitalism operating in a relatively fair and free, moderately but fairly-regulated, moderately & evenly taxed market that provides a relatively-even playing field for business and entrepreneurs is ingenuous and intellectually dishonest at best.
The US didn't achieve the highest standard of living to ever exist, even for the poor, the most individual freedom ever known for even the poorest, nor achieve ultimate superpower status because Americans are somehow different than any other people. It's been Capitalism that's been allowed to flourish unfettered to as great an extent as possible while still curbing the most serious abuses.
Not to say Capitalism is without problems and challenges to making it work well. Capitalism is the worst system ever tried...except for every other system ever tried. By quite a wide margin, I might add.
History shows us that:
>Capitalism is the only system ever created where wealth is a renewable resource for everyone from the poorest to the richest as long as they are willing to work and/or come up with an idea, skill/talent, or invention that's useful or of other value to someone else. It doesn't "divide the pie" where if one gets richer, another gets poorer. Capitalism is a bakery that makes more pies. It generates wealth that didn't previously exist.
>Capitalism has raised more people from poverty and provided a higher standard of living for more people than any other system ever created.
>Capitalism has allowed more people to live in freedom than any other system ever invented.
>Capitalism has allowed the US to provide more humanitarian assistance to those in need both domestically and around the world than any other system or country in history.
Painting Capitalism as the bogey-man for what is occurring politically and economically completely and totally ignores these facts backed by history.
Strat
.
C'mon...be reasonable in your arguments and keep it apples to apples, eh?
But...but...how do you expect him to win the argument if he has to play it all fair and even....and...and stuff? Smoking baaaad! (yes, we know...so is excessive masturbation to internet porn, but I don't think you'll get any traction with the /. crowd on banning that one!).
Good stuff, cayenne8!
Strat
America should be broken up into several countries, with no overbearing power-hungry Federal government to fuck things up.
America used to be like that, with many strong and relatively independent country-like entities called States, with a small and weak Federal government to do those things only a national government can do, like negotiate treaties, provide common defense against foreign aggressors, and control/defend the national borders.. It's how the Constitution was written and how it was until the Civil War/Lincoln, FDR, and Wilson, continuing into the more recent administrations, morphed it into just the opposite and centralized most government power.
Instead of redrawing all the maps, I think it would be simpler and easier to just return the Federal government back to the Constitutionally-limited & weak central government it used to be.
Same effect.
Strat