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.
Excellent idea. We should talk about the details of how to make that happen. Perhaps we could start with public schools. A child born into a family that can't afford a private school doesn't deserve an education anyways. And we can gladly forget the Federal Treasury, etc., and go back to the days when individual banks issued their own money. That would certainly make America great again. Anyone who can't afford medical care should just suffer and die if they can't get a hand-out. Prisoners should all just be killed or set free, unless some generous private donors want to keep the prison system going. We can gladly get rid of the military. We'll save a lot of money by not paying for military pensions any more. Wounded veterans can just die if they can't work or get sufficient handouts. And Law Enforcement is just a pain in the butt so no one will be sad to see that go. And emergency services? That stuff should just be for rich people anyway. The whole judiciary system is pointless, so good riddance to all that. Might and/or money makes right is all that anyone needs to know about justice. The highway system has always been bunk; all roads should be toll roads. And if the toll booth operator doesn't accept the money issued from my particular bank I can just stab him in the neck because if he is too slow to dodge, he deserves to die anyways because my might makes me right. Yes, indeed, life without government would be free and peaceful. Unicorns could dance and play amidst endless forests of smokestacks and happy children could frolic through mountains of uncollected trash from sea to dying sea.
Your spoof reminded me of George Carlin’s take on “America the Beautiful”.
Please. The dangerous Left owns 95% of the mainstream media. All the giants like CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, WP, etc. are all liberal and biased. And that’s not even counting in the entertainment industry which is also very liberal and has the country’s eyes and ears.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1
The Liberal/Progressives (Democrats) want to ignore that FACT. They have a hard time admitting they own the Media, Entertainment, Corporations (especially tech, finance, and social media). We have been fighting an uphill battle for decades, yet we are not defeated, because we have many of the average citizens on our side, including many very accomplished, and educated people who like their rights and freedoms.
So what's stopping those educated and very accomplished conservatives from owning more media, entertainment, finance and technology? Oh wait. Those industries require critical thinking skills. So sorry.
Rights and freedoms? Don't make me laugh. Conservatives are a bunch of neanderthal Luddites who'd rather pollute the earth with fossil fuels, limit personal freedoms and promote discrimination with their phony, evangelical hypocrisy. "Just don't take my guns, man. We need those to overthrow the tyranny." You *are* the tyranny.
Right, wrong, or indifferent, Trump's mannerisms and his public speaking skills opened up pandora's box for what is the current assault on the POTUS. THis goes all the way back to the primaries. Public perception (despite his winning) skewed disdain to today's levels.
Excellent idea. We should talk about the details of how to make that happen. Perhaps we could start with public schools. A child born into a family that can't afford a private school doesn't deserve an education anyways. And we can gladly forget the Federal Treasury, etc., and go back to the days when individual banks issued their own money. That would certainly make America great again. Anyone who can't afford medical care should just suffer and die if they can't get a hand-out. Prisoners should all just be killed or set free, unless some generous private donors want to keep the prison system going. We can gladly get rid of the military. We'll save a lot of money by not paying for military pensions any more. Wounded veterans can just die if they can't work or get sufficient handouts. And Law Enforcement is just a pain in the butt so no one will be sad to see that go. And emergency services? That stuff should just be for rich people anyway. The whole judiciary system is pointless, so good riddance to all that. Might and/or money makes right is all that anyone needs to know about justice. The highway system has always been bunk; all roads should be toll roads. And if the toll booth operator doesn't accept the money issued from my particular bank I can just stab him in the neck because if he is too slow to dodge, he deserves to die anyways because my might makes me right. Yes, indeed, life without government would be free and peaceful. Unicorns could dance and play amidst endless forests of smokestacks and happy children could frolic through mountains of uncollected trash from sea to dying sea.
Let's see...
a.) More homeschooling. Free-market private schools--better quality, lower price. Charity schools for those who can't afford them.
b.) Gold, silver, other precious metals. Cryptocurrencies--which are going to replace fiat money anyway.
c.) Free-market healthcare, better quality, lower price. Doctors used to make house calls and were paid cash on the spot. Charity hospitals for the indigent--St. Jude is funded through charitable donations.
d.) Eliminate victimless crimes. The only crimes involve a victim--murder, rape, theft, assault, fraud, trespass, libel/slander. The prison population shrinks by 75%.
e.) Abolish the military. It's nothing but an cannon fodder for the defense contractors. Have a private voluntary defense made up of volunteers and private companies.
f.) Eliminate public police. All they do is shoot and harass innocent people, anyway. Replace with free-market companies providing voluntary protection. Better quality, lower price.
g.) Private courts, like they had in Celtic Ireland for 2000 years.
h.) Privately-funded roads based on user fees. No use, no pay. Governments don't build roads anyway--contractors do. Do your due diligence ahead of time and find out which roads take what currency, just as you check nowadays if a business takes credit cards.
i.) Assault and/or murder is a violation of the NAP. The vast majority of people aren't going to murder someone because their money isn't accepted at a place of business. But even if it happens, it's no different than if the State is running the tollbooth.
j.) Pollution is a property rights violation and are a violation of the NAP. Besides, there are hundreds of governments in existence as we speak, and there are smokestacks polluting the air and millions of tons of trash floating in the oceans regardless.
d.) Eliminate victimless crimes. The only crimes involve a victim--murder, rape, theft, assault, fraud, trespass, libel/slander. The prison population shrinks by 75%.
I agree with this one. But there would still be a problem with the remaining 25%.
(BTW, just for context: I have a lot of libertarian instincts underlying a couple layers of "left-wing" political intuitions. I identify as "independent" because I evaluate issues on a case-by-case basis and end up all over the political spectrum. I try my best to side with whatever idea is supported by the best empirical data and/or logical arguments. Of course I don't always succeed. I know that I have my own forms of cognitive blindness, but my goals, at least, tend to be sincere.)
As a philosopher and science-lover, I'm fascinated by the core instincts and concepts that drive people's political and spiritual views. I think there is some extremely good evidence for what would probably happen if you try to eliminate government, or try to minimize it too much. Basically this: In the case of Democratic societies, the most realistic result would be that rule of "the people" via representatives would be replaced by some combination of rule by despots/military leaders and/or rule by industrialists. In America we would probably settling into something like the early industrial days where pollution was rampant (e.g., rivers catching on fire, Lake Eerie basically dead, etc.) and most people - including a lot of children - worked 16 hour days in dangerous working conditions for very little income producing products that, very often, were dangerous to consumers and/or dangerous for the environment and/or highly inhumane to animals. I don't want to go back to those days. Representative democracy is frustrating and often corrupt/misguided but it is light-years better than the realistic alternatives. Contrary to Ayn Rand, history shows clearly that people without government are not guided by "enlightened self-interest" but, rather, by mostly pure greed. This is not because human nature is just plain bad, but because in any large population you always have some who are driven by pure greed, and these are the folks who have the tenacity to always, in one way or another, gain economic power, which forces the masses of humanity into desperate circumstances in which they - against their better instincts for fairness and compassion - end up in a dog-eat-dog mentality for the sake of sheer survival.
Anthropologists can point to some examples of humans living in relative harmony with each other and with their environment without government, but these are always pre-industrial people. But now the science/industry cat is out of the bag and (barring worldwide calamity and massive human die-off) I think it is safe to say that that cat has no intention of every going back into that bag.
The core question of the moment is: Can we find a way to make representative democracy better? What are the core instincts/intuitions/concepts that drive us to such extreme political views? And, given these core instincts/intuitions, is there any hope of peaceful compromise? I think our best hope is to somehow improve the critical-thinking skills and capacity for compassion of the majority of voters. Somehow our educational system and child-raising practices need to improve in such a way that our intellectual curiosity and sense of fairness and compassion are nurtured while the fears driving sheer dog-eat-dog survival mode and cultural xenophobia are minimized.
The die was cast some time ago when the Republicans realized they couldn't win based on issues and positions.
If they wanted to win, they would need to smear opposing candidates with lies, gerrymander districts, suppress the vote, purge voting roles, ...
The dirty deal with the Iranian hostages was a clue. How convenient that they were released on Reagan's inauguration. Iran/Contra followed, of course. Bush Sr. pardoned the co-conspirators, effectively completing that cover-up.
Instead of going after Clinton for his policies and positions, they spent years trying to nail him on everything from a land investment to a blow job. They still carry on about "crooked Clinton" and chant "lock her up" though she's never even been charged with a crime, let alone convicted of one.
"Swiftboating" is the term for smearing a candidate with lies. It came into being when Republicans lied about Kerry's service in Vietnam.
Reportedly, on his death bed, Lee Atwater regretted how he had poisoned the national discourse.
Exactly. Conservatives can dish it out but boy do they hate it when their own tactics are used against them.
Regarding politics, and especially the presidency...... politics have become a war more so than ever before. Will the all presidents from here on be subjected to ongoing investigations, media blitz, etc. This question in no way is a statement about our current president, it just seems that from here on out either side will just engage in a constant attack to undermine and hinder whatever administration is in power. It is an effective tactic. Also..... will this keep good people from seeking office due to " the hell with that, it's not worth it"?
I doubt it will end. Some "media" outlets exist for the sole purpose of smearing Democrats. InfoWars and Breitbart being good examples.
If there was a good GOP president, like Rand Paul, the mainstream media would probably leave him alone. Trump is receiving what he receives simply because he is a lying SOB with endless streams of controversies and scandals.
Regarding politics, and especially the presidency...... politics have become a war more so than ever before. Will the all presidents from here on be subjected to ongoing investigations, media blitz, etc. This question in no way is a statement about our current president, it just seems that from here on out either side will just engage in a constant attack to undermine and hinder whatever administration is in power. It is an effective tactic. Also..... will this keep good people from seeking office due to " the hell with that, it's not worth it"?
It could dissuade good people, for sure. It could also inspire good people to run for office, too.
Our politics has a way of following the national will. If enough dissent arises and lasts over a long run, attitudes and thoughts change in the public, and since our leaders come from the public, they change too.
Any President is the most prominent governmental figurehead. The President is the only person we all directly elect, and there has never been one yet that ever received full acclaim.
They are always going to be scrutinized and criticized. They always were in the past, and the only change in the present is we all know more about them, in faster awareness, than as it was in the past.
Our greatest Presidents have been the one most attacked and often, the most controversial. Our worst Presidents have received the same attacks and controversy.
A big part of what makes a President great is the ability to overcome these things, and the ability to find as much good compromise as exists. They are part of the hazards of taking the job.
Our worst Presidents are those who became so entangled and bogged down by those hazards that they ultimately failed. Either way, success or failure, it's a personal challenge, not a public matter, for any President to overcome the hazards of public opinion. The citizens do not always attack every President equally.
Only if a Republican is in office. The Media gives a pass to Democrats, as they are merely their propaganda arm.
pretty accurate, sadly.
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.
