Quote:Government isn't the problem, government is the mechanism.
When someone pulls a lever to drop a wrecking ball on someone, do you say the wrecking ball is the problem or do you say the guy pulling the lever is the problem?
The problem we have is the failure of the citizenry of our nation to recognize anything about the problems our nation faces.
That we have people who believe anyone is better off letting psychopaths (and CEOs of large corporations are on the order of 10x more likely to be a psychopath than a randomly selected subject) run amok and that government is bad because it's possible for it to be run by the wrong people and ideology is the real governmental problem faced in the US.
Your analogy is missing a piece.
The government isn't the lever. It's the organization that provides the person with the lever. The lever is the law.
Both the guy who pulls the lever, and the organization that provided the person with the lever are responsible.
Quote:Your analogy is missing a piece.
The government isn't the lever. It's the organization that provides the person with the lever. The lever is the law.
Both the guy who pulls the lever, and the organization that provided the person with the lever are responsible.
You're almost there but you just missed it.
Ultimately the fault lies with the citizenry of the nation, they are the ones putting the bad guy in front of the lever. THE GOVERNMENT IS THE LEVER AND THE WRECKING BALL.
So, like I said, government isn't the problem, government is the mechanism, the fault lies in those with beliefs that don't square with reality, not the fact that we have a government. Without government you'll just have some other less accountable organization stepping in to take over, which is what we currently have with essentially lawless international corporations.
Quote:You're almost there but you just missed it.
Ultimately the fault lies with the citizenry of the nation, they are the ones putting the bad guy in front of the lever. THE GOVERNMENT IS THE LEVER AND THE WRECKING BALL.
So, like I said, government isn't the problem, government is the mechanism, the fault lies in those with beliefs that don't square with reality, not the fact that we have a government. Without government you'll just have some other less accountable organization stepping in to take over, which is what we currently have with essentially lawless international corporations.
No, the problem is that your idealistic government can't exist in reality because all people are different. Unless you plan on brainwashing everyone -- in which case that's a society I want no part of.
Quote:No, the problem is that your idealistic government can't exist in reality because all people are different. Unless you plan on brainwashing everyone -- in which case that's a society I want no part of.
An idealistic government can exist, it just stands to reason that it might not be everyone's idealistic government.
For the ultrawealthy and politically connected it currently is a rather ideal government.
It could certainly be much better for everyone else that isn't on top right now, though.
Still, I find your cynicism regarding the possibility of a better government sad.
Quote:An idealistic government can exist, it just stands to reason that it might not be everyone's idealistic government.
For the ultrawealthy and politically connected it currently is a rather ideal government.
It could certainly be much better for everyone else that isn't on top right now, though.
Still, I find your cynicism regarding the possibility of a better government sad.
If only you could resurrect Carl Marx. Then all would be right with the world.
Quote:What you are describing is what Comcast, et al, are lobbying to do.
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://motherboard.vice.com/about?trk_source=nav'>http://motherboard.vice.com/about?trk_source=nav</a>
What's wrong with investigative journalism?
So, "investigative journalism" is perfectly fine as long as it's coming from some fringe site that has an agenda you support, right? Otherwise it's a crap blog site or right wing propaganda. Keep lapping up the garbage your beloved government is feeding you.
It worries me how some are so dependent on government they can not fathom society with out it. That's what's sad
Quote:It worries me how some are so dependent on government they can not fathom society with out it. That's what's sad
Why does it worry you? People have found government preferable to anarchy for a very long time.
Quote:Why does it worry you? People have found government preferable to anarchy for a very long time.
It's the level of dependency that worries me
Quote:It's the level of dependency that worries me
Why do people always conflate smaller government proponents with Anarchists? Is it just ignorance or is it intentional to straw man the debate? None of us have ever advocated for doing away with "a" federal government, but it always seems to come back to that extreme position.
Quote:Why do people always conflate smaller government proponents with Anarchists? Is it just ignorance or is it intentional to straw man the debate? None of us have ever advocated for doing away with "a" federal government, but it always seems to come back to that extreme position.
I think people assume I'm an anarchist it happens all the time. I just simply believe in a government that protects life and property everything else is excess.
Quote:If only you could resurrect Carl Marx. Then all would be right with the world.
Why would you need to resurrect him? If someone is interested in his philosophy it's not like his books aren't still around.
Quote:Why do people always conflate smaller government proponents with Anarchists? Is it just ignorance or is it intentional to straw man the debate? None of us have ever advocated for doing away with "a" federal government, but it always seems to come back to that extreme position.
No, it's just that by default people try to give people the benefit of the doubt of not being hypocrites.
If you're not for eliminating government then what you're really doing is just arguing levels of authoritarianism, which makes your position quite disingenuous. Essentially amounting to, "I don't approve of these parts of government you like, I think we should only have the parts that Iike." Which is a perfectly reasonable position to have, but it's hypocritical to attempt to label yourself libertarian, because you don't want liberty that everyone approves of, you want everyone to be subject to what you call liberty, which makes you the same as those you rail against as dependent on big government.
Quote:No, it's just that by default people try to give people the benefit of the doubt of not being hypocrites.
If you're not for eliminating government then what you're really doing is just arguing levels of authoritarianism, which makes your position quite disingenuous. Essentially amounting to, "I don't approve of these parts of government you like, I think we should only have the parts that Iike." Which is a perfectly reasonable position to have, but it's hypocritical to attempt to label yourself libertarian, because you don't want liberty that everyone approves of, you want everyone to be subject to what you call liberty, which makes you the same as those you rail against as dependent on big government.
In the choice between more freedom and less freedom (with a set floor of absolutes) I always choose to go with more freedom. It's not hypocritical to prefer more freedom for you and me both, it is hypocritical for you to call government dependence and tyranny "freedom that everyone approves of."
Quote:I think people assume I'm an anarchist it happens all the time. I just simply believe in a government that protects life and property everything else is excess.
It's hard not to assume you're an anarchist if you state that it worries you that people cannot fathom society without government.
I agree that we should limit our dependency on government. I simply don't agree that Net Neutrality is too much of a dependence on government. I believe that a government's purpose should be to serve it's people. Without net neutrality, liberty will be at stake and in the hands of telecomm companies. And I trust them less than any government. Because they don't answer to the people. Any views they don't like, they can easily put in the slow lane.
Quote:It's hard not to assume you're an anarchist if you state that it worries you that people cannot fathom society without government.
I agree that we should limit our dependency on government. I simply don't agree that Net Neutrality is too much of a dependence on government. I believe that a government's purpose should be to serve it's people. Without net neutrality, liberty will be at stake and in the hands of telecomm companies. And I trust them less than any government. Because they don't answer to the people. Any views they don't like, they can easily put in the slow lane.
I don't really have an opinion on the net neutrality it's not something I've done a lot of looking into.
Quote:I don't really have an opinion on the net neutrality it's not something I've done a lot of looking into.
Net Neutrality is a pretty important issue.
Did you ever have a 56k modem? Do you remember how slow it was? Now imagine that speed
halved. Imagine paying the prices you are paying now, and because Amazon.com didn't pay a toll, your connection is degraded to half of 56k when accessing Amazon.com.
Quote:Net Neutrality is a pretty important issue.
Did you ever have a 56k modem? Do you remember how slow it was? Now imagine that speed halved. Imagine paying the prices you are paying now, and because Amazon.com didn't pay a toll, your connection is degraded to half of 56k when accessing Amazon.com.
Right, except it's much more sinister than that.
Amazon will likely pay the toll, but amazon isn't an organization in significant danger from the start.
Small players, political organizations, and services like Netflix that directly compete with the Comcasts of the world are the ones in the most danger.
Essentially when you don't regulate you're putting Comcast in charge of whether or not anyone else can offer similar service to them through the internet at a reasonable price, and it's something comcast really doesn't want happening.
Big business is a parasite on the American economy, big government regulation is the solution to that parasite.
Quote:Right, except it's much more sinister than that.
Amazon will likely pay the toll, but amazon isn't an organization in significant danger from the start.
Small players, political organizations, and services like Netflix that directly compete with the Comcasts of the world are the ones in the most danger.
Essentially when you don't regulate you're putting Comcast in charge of whether or not anyone else can offer similar service to them through the internet at a reasonable price, and it's something comcast really doesn't want happening.
Big business is a parasite on the American economy, big government regulation is the solution to that parasite.
^^ that right there makes me suspicious of the whole thing