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.
I agree that Obama wasn't the great redeemer he was marketed as.
Centralized power is more stable than decentralized power, so if the US government doesn't accept that we're living in a world of massive, multinational companies that put profits/the interests of their investors over people/employees, then some other country that doesn't have a conscience either will simply steal away all of their investors.
Centralized power is never good. Too much power in the hands of a few will always be abused.
You should read up on tyrannical governments, and the pain and suffering of the people, how they gain control obtained mostly because the people believed in a few who promised heaven on earth and they abused their power through (your centralized government). Adolph Hitler, Castro, Kim Jong-Il, Idi Amin Dada, Lenin, Brezhnev and on and on...Centralized Power
You're a spoiled fool if you think it can't happen here in the U.S.
I agree that Obama wasn't the great redeemer he was marketed as.
Centralized power is more stable than decentralized power, so if the US government doesn't accept that we're living in a world of massive, multinational companies that put profits/the interests of their investors over people/employees, then some other country that doesn't have a conscience either will simply steal away all of their investors.
Wow, our government school systems did not teach history very well, why? Are doomed to repeat the mistakes of other societies?
Learn some history, and learn why our founding fathers set up decentralized government. They understood that concentrated power in the hands of few only served the masters, not the people. The people were also given power with the vote, the ability of the people to fight either through the court of law or rise up against their government through a peoples army. Remember, back in those days government didn't have tanks, air power, they had guns just like the people.
Ironically it was high taxes that caused Sam Adams and others to fight starting with the Boston Tea Party. Americans were referred to as "the colonist" and had to pay higher and higher taxes to the King even though the people, the colonist, were living in poverty. The king's appetite for taking the people's money could not be satisfied. It put people into poverty and the people rose against him.
The real danger with centralized power is corruption creeps in and so far it always has done so. Corrupt people may say they care but don't feel the pain and suffering of others. These types naturally gravitate to the centers of power.
Centralized power is never good. Too much power in the hands of a few will always be abused.
You should read up on tyrannical governments and how many millions died, the pain and suffering all because people put these leaders in power (your centralized government) because they were promised heaven on earth. Adolph Hitler, Castro, Kim Jong-Il, Idi Amin Dada, Lenin, Brezhnev and on and on...Centralized Power
Learn some history, and learn why our founding fathers set up our system the way they did (NOT centralized? With the ability of the people to fight either through the court of law or rise up against their government? Because they understood that concentrated power in the hands of few only served the masters, not the people. The real danger with centralized power is corruption creeps in and so far it always has done so. Corrupt people may say they care but don't feel the pain and suffering of others. These types naturally gravitate to the centers of power.
You're a fool if you think it can't happen here in the U.S.
You hate big companies, what do you think that is? A smaller version of centralized power, notice that monopolies are against the law, why?
I didn't say it was good, I said it was stable.
I would say it's overly simplistic to assume that centralized power is always bad, but I don't want to set you off again.
But since you're so good at history... if decentralized power is 'good', what do you think of feudalism?
EDIT: No, don't answer that... it's an economics thread in the economics forum.
I would say it's overly simplistic to assume that centralized power is always bad, but I don't want to set you off again.
But since you're so good at history... if decentralized power is 'good', what do you think of feudalism?
EDIT: No, don't answer that... it's an economics thread in the economics forum.
The entire founding fathers generation lived under the tyranny of the king of England (centralized). The king had virtually no limits on his power. He could make rules as he went and change them on a whim. He could seize your property, or your life and you could do nothing about it. The more centralized our government is the higher the danger of abuse. The Constitution was written to spell out the limited powers delegated to the Federal government.
Feudalism, aahh, always "the lord" (centralized power) taking from the people which always turns to taking more. Of course, the lord was rich and the rest lived in poverty.
I would say it's overly simplistic to assume that centralized power is always bad, but I don't want to set you off again.
But since you're so good at history... if decentralized power is 'good', what do you think of feudalism?
EDIT: No, don't answer that... it's an economics thread in the economics forum.
Notice our system, although not perfect was the best, think, middle class. Unlike centralized government where it's best for the people in power, it becomes them and the peasants. If you think it can't happen here you're a fool.
It will happen under the guise of putting "a savior" in power. The makings... someone to blame (a scapegoat), political correctness, control of the media, people who put too much faith in the leader, division, hatred, disarming the people, high taxation. People who are dependent are the easiest to control.
I would say it's overly simplistic to assume that centralized power is always bad, but I don't want to set you off again.
But since you're so good at history... if decentralized power is 'good', what do you think of feudalism?
EDIT: No, don't answer that... it's an economics thread in the economics forum.
That's why the American people are so mad. They understand that the president took too much power and the congress did nothing to stop him.
Centralization of power is always bad, even when it appears to have a good short-term result. Every time you approve of the Federal government taking on new power for things you approve of, you authorize your opponents to do the same for things you oppose.
The problem is that credible R&D requires good education and sophisticated brainpower. With enough motivation and cultural change, good education is possible. But what about brainpower? We can't have a society of physicists, engineers and poets; or even one of economists, marketing-specialists and lawyers. To paraphrase Huxley in the "Brave New World", we can't have a society of Alphas. We need more deltas and epsilon semi-morons.
R&D requires money and an army of zomboids tolerant of the mind numbing routine, no life and BS that comes from fighting for funding and tenure. There is a reason why Chinese peasant "braniacs" dominate R&D in USA and EU.
Quote:
Most people simply lack the intellectual capital to do much beyond rote, repetitive labor.
Much of R&D is described by repetitive nearly mindless routine and bs to justify funding. Asians are great at routine. Indians are great at BS.
Quote:
But the lack of smart people isn't the problem. In fact I see the opposite problem... we have too many PhDs, too many engineers and physicists and mathematicians. We have too many graduates from Caltech and Stanford and MIT, let alone Ohio State or Wright State University or whatever. It's not that the PhDs are unemployed or flipping burgers. It's that they're shuffling papers. There isn't enough need for new research, and we have a glut of persons with capacity to do research. And no, it's not a nativist call to curtail H1-B's (I'm an immigrant myself).
An army of smart degreed people engage in the brain numbing activities HS educated technicians used to do. Many are stuck in those positions for a decade+. "Real" non R&D world refuses to hire them in any capacity, so they are stuck literally.
Feudalism, aahh, always "the lord" (centralized power) taking from the people which always turns to taking more. Of course, the lord was rich and the rest lived in poverty.
Feudalism was a decentralized power structure because all of the power was held on a local level, where territory was privately owned.
What you're saying here tells me you don't understand the difference between centralized power and coercion. Coercion can happen on the local level just as easily as it can happen on the federal level.
It doesn't magically vanish just because the factory owner is allowed to treat his workers any way he wants to without any repercussions because he owns the courts and has his own private army. In fact, oppression is MORE likely to occur because the lord can now do whatever he needs to do in order to bolster himself and his family. There was no central authority so there were no universal worker's rights.
Feudalism was a decentralized power structure because all of the power was held on a local level, where territory was privately owned.
What you're saying here tells me you don't understand the difference between centralized power and coercion. Coercion can happen on the local level just as easily as it can happen on the federal level.
It doesn't magically vanish just because the factory owner is allowed to treat his workers any way he wants to without any repercussions because he owns the courts and has his own private army. In fact, oppression is MORE likely to occur because the lord can now do whatever he needs to do in order to bolster himself and his family. There was no central authority so there were no universal worker's rights.
Exactly! Any time that one organ of power has concentrated and outsized authority, there will be abuse and mismanagement. Consider the corrupt city-manager or megalomaniacal town sheriff. The retort is that if it's local-power that's abusive, then residents can move and businesses can relocate. That's easier to do than to immigrate. Maybe so. But most people have local roots… families and jobs. Relocation is impractical. And one might land in a locale that's no better than what one left.
The benefit of federal power is that its holders are subject to national scrutiny, and are drawn from a national pool. Fools and miscreants can still reach high office, but it's less likely at the national level than at the state level, which in turn is less likely than at the local level.
Regardless of what we think of our national political scene, I personally am a lot more concerned about a crooked local cop than about an FBI raid, or about another local tax-levy than changes to the federal tax-code, or about a local building-ordinance or environmental-ordinance than about NAFTA or the EPA.
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.
