Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not necessarily, but we have plenty of government involvement in the economy and other aspects of life here. That's the point -- we are doing poorly as a country b/c our government is too large, not b/c it's too small.
Not meaning this to be a harsh criticism but speaking about 'large' vs 'small' government is sortof vague, personally, the overuse of the expression has rendered it bereft of meaning. Government involvement on the other hand is more meaningful although I think aiming for a more functional balance between the role of markets & the role of government would provide better outcomes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LIS123
Are you saying taxes are too low? Are regulations too low? How would increasing taxes and regulations (and government as a whole) even further benefit the country?
I'm gonna give you a long story short version, I think the recent global financial imbroglio has revealed fundamental flaws in the way we practice capitalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LIS123
Despite such an intrusive government, the southern border is still wide open, so the government fails to perform its primary Constitutional duty, which is defending the country.
Do you mean economically defending the country? Or as in military defense? Again, the long story short version is we seem to do too little when it comes to the former & too much when it comes to the latter, military industrial complex, etc. Personally, a more balanced, sustainable approach would be preferable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LIS123
Are you saying that urban communities run by Democrats for decades are struggling b/c they've been managed too conservatively and don't have big enough government?
I'm saying the status quo is the only solution that cannot be vetoed.
I most likely need to clarify that I tend to favor this definition for conservative:
"...For example, people with something to lose tend toward conservative choices politically as well as economically. Nothing wrong with that necessarily. Just an observation about the influence of Loss Aversion heuristic on actual decision making. We are more apt to endure the status quo, even as it slowly deteriorates, than we are to call for “radical” change. Regrettably, however, when the call for change comes, it often requires a far greater upheaval to make the necessary transformations, or, on occasion, the situation has deteriorated beyond the point of no return. In those situations we find ourselves wondering why we waited so long before doing something. ..."
~Facione, PA, “Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts”
The 14th Amendment declared everyone a slave to the National government. Rather than abolishing slavery, as your nationally controlled indoctrination education teaches you, the reality is, slavery was extended to cover everyone, which is why you are issued a "birth certificate", as well as serial number (social security number) at birth, and the fruits of your labor, for the rest of your life, are subject to confiscation under threat of imprisonment for non-compliance (income tax).
Check out your "birth certificate" and notice that your parents are labeled "informants". They are informing the government of the new slave that has arrived.
Welcome to the land of the deceived, and home of the depraved.
If you consider yourself a slave, why do you consent to live in this country that enslaves you?
I'm sure there are countries out there you do not have to be a slave ...
Is asking the people of a Country to reflect on the kind of society or community they would like to have & then asking them to consider if we are creating an economy that is helpful in achieving those aspirations an emotional argument?
Liberals vote for that promise, but Dems never deliver it. So, yeah, continuing to vote for something promised but never delivered is an emotional action, not a rational one. When will you all ever learn?
The scientific method is a process by which folks endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent & non-arbitrary) representation of the World. The observation of changing conditions over time is integral to the process. & no one thing takes the place of a process.
Although the 'right to own people as property' through the institution of slavery was hotly debated at the Constitutional Convention, that Government created & that Constitution designed, enabled Slavery.
There were always more than one or even two sides on the issue of the 'right to own people as property.' Unfortunately, the United States of America had to have a Civil War to end the perception that the 'right to own people as property' was a legitimate one.
The same Government, over time, both enforced & ended. A silly but simple example to demonstrate the scientific method. Water, depending on conditions & the element of time, can be steam, liquid or ice.
Oddly enough, segregation by race did not have to be considered when Slavery was enforced. Folks lived side by side although one race was considered to be the property of the other.
The black codes had roots in the slave codes that had formerly been in effect, & were created, implemented & enforced to keep the 'people as property' social controls in place. Largely the same with Jim Crow.
The various States created, implemented & enforced Jim Crow laws & then were 'forced' to stop.
Personally, I don't think one is rationally persuaded by, for example, stating, "Slavery was enforced by government...segregation was also enforced by government." You are reducing too many basic elements.
Not to ignore the majority of your post, much of which I have no issue with, but I don't think I'm reducing anything too greatly. Slave owners themselves were a tiny percentage of the population and couldn't stop their slaves from any type of uprising, or from running away. The government was enforcing slavery, and people were required to return slaves back to their "owners". That's how slavery continued to function effectively.
With Jim Crow, which I think we've discussed recently, the state governments created segregation. You're right that the federal government forced them to stop, but you can't credit government with solving a problem government caused in the first place.
I'm not seeing how the statements I made were untrue...
If you consider yourself a slave, why do you consent to live in this country that enslaves you?
I'm sure there are countries out there you do not have to be a slave ...
Consenting to live here =/= consenting to be a slave. The person minding their own business isn't the one who needs to justify themselves. It's the person that goes up to them and tries to enforce their arbitrary opinions on them, and who demands a cut of their paycheck.
Actually, if you apply the logic you're using (not just you...it's very common), any of the clearly oppressed people throughout history consented to it by not moving. I think they had the right to live on their own property, and the oppressors should be the ones who have to get out.
It's like the Michael Bolton quote in Office Space..."Why should I change? He's the one who sucks." Why should we leave? They're the ones who suck.
I'll also add that if you're content with the amount of intrusion other people have in your life and how much money they take from you, fine. That doesn't mean that those of us who completely despise it should quit our whining, as we sometimes hear.
Consenting to live here =/= consenting to be a slave. The person minding their own business isn't the one who needs to justify themselves. It's the person that goes up to them and tries to enforce their arbitrary opinions on them, and who demands a cut of their paycheck.
Actually, if you apply the logic you're using (not just you...it's very common), any of the clearly oppressed people throughout history consented to it by not moving.
I'll also add that if you're content with the amount of intrusion other people have in your life and how much money they take from you, fine. That doesn't mean that those of us who completely despise it should "quit our whining" as we sometimes hear.
Look up those who have tried moving off the grid (believe it was California but I'm not researching tonight) and the local utility companies got a court order to put them back on their grid.
Not to ignore the majority of your post, much of which I have no issue with, but I don't think I'm reducing anything too greatly. Slave owners themselves were a tiny percentage of the population and couldn't stop their slaves from any type of uprising, or from running away. The government was enforcing slavery, and people were required to return slaves back to their "owners". That's how slavery continued to function effectively.
With Jim Crow, which I think we've discussed recently, the state governments created segregation. You're right that the federal government forced them to stop, but you can't credit government with solving a problem government caused in the first place.
I'm not seeing how the statements I made were untrue...
I'm not accusing you of making untrue statements.
I'm attempting to explain, albeit perhaps feebly, why I think you're surrendering an adequate representation of the history by failing to include the basic element of 'over time.'
Conditions change, humanity evolves. As above, so below. A functional government evolves along with changing conditions, updated information including scientific knowledge & an evolving electorate.
"There are more things in heaven & earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
I appreciate your thoughtviews T0103E. Just let me be Hamlet to your Horatio. (& yes I know that's completely corny but I'm trying!)
1. Ownership - the right to possession of something. Possession - the state of having, owning, or controlling something.
2. If you own yourself (self-ownership - having full say or control over your body and life), nobody else has the right to control you by force. Your body is your property, and you have exclusive rights to it.
3. If someone claims the right to control you by force, they're claiming ownership over you. They may be a relatively nice master and let you do as you wish a lot of the time, but they still hold that ownership card in the event that they want to overrule a decision you make over your own life.
4. Taxation is forcing you to give up some of your money, whether you choose to or not. They claim the right to your earnings, and the right to use force against you if you don't obey.
I agree with some of your opinion. I'm pro-choice too. Women should be able to decide if they want to abort, the terminally sick should be able to end their suffering, etc.
But to eliminate taxes makes no sense to me. How do you propose our society function? The rich would be the only ones with access to roads, medical, schooling etc... NOT a place I want to live. Maybe if you at this differently. Not as theft but part of a social contract with your fellow American.
I suppose you could move off the grid to North Dakota or some rural area and live off the land like it was 1750. That might be possible but not entirely sure. It would be a hard life and you probably wouldn't have to worry about getting too old! Right?
Liberals vote for that promise, but Dems never deliver it. So, yeah, continuing to vote for something promised but never delivered is an emotional action, not a rational one. When will you all ever learn?
Vote for what promise?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just let me be Hamlet to your Horatio. 
