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.
Randi Rhodes was speaking about this very topic on her talk show this week.she makes me want to puke! She is all rhetoric, anti-American, full of hate, and an embarrassment to women.
And the society these other crazies envision would essentially lead to a plutocracy. You think the gov't is bad? Ha.
Economic power should never be consolidated or be allowed to consolidate. And allowing capitalists to have carte blanche on using their economic leverage to control people would wind up being the end game of objectivism. These people are essentially begging to switch out big brother for big CEO. This just puts a new face on the problem.
Actually, it would be Plutarchy... but that can't happen in a free society where un-hindered economic competition keeps prices low and there is no government setting restrictions or subsidies to promote or retard a business or service. The laws of supply and demand are very simple. It's the government interference that causes the mountains of problems. In a free society it would be so hard for a corporation to become a monopoly because as soon as it's profit potential is realized, there will competitors undercutting to get in on the action, thereby forcing the prices to stay low. I think it was Tacitus who said "The more corrupt the state, the more it regulates", do you think we're there?
But it goes well beyond the economy. How about the simple freedom to dictate for yourself what you put into your body? What chemicals you want in your food and water. How about the fiscal saving (read:taxes) we could realize by not supporting foreign governments with billions of dollars? Did you see any of them offering US support when the economy went belly up? Do think we should be paying BILLIONS of dollars to buy up a car company that makes cars no one wants to buy? (hence, the reason they failed in the first place!!). Libertarians don't think that's the best use of tax payers money. Do YOU think that's smart? Do YOU think that the current system is working properly?
Maybe you support this nanny state of affairs we have, but I think I'm far more capable of running my own life, than an out of control government that can't balance their checkbook.
Seems to me that you might be willing to trade one bad guy — President Zero — for another who wants to punish success and hard work (assuming big CEO wouldn't). Maybe the the goal in your utopia would be to limit wealth and income, or, perhaps, in distributing it using some other set of guidelines. The result being a parade of characters like those found in Pleasantville.
Actually, there is no such thing as a utopia. The economy should be dynamic in that it can adjust to the times. I am not an ideologue. Socialism and libertarianism are both useless ideologies that both end in misery if left unchecked. You want a libertarian paradise? Go check out Somalia. There are times in which, frankly, wealth needs to be redistributed and times in which gov't intervention is too heavy handed and needs to be limited.
To say that gov't involvement in everything is inherently bad is intellectually immature. There is a balance that needs to be reached to ensure economic stability and maximum efficiency depending on the economic conditions at that time. The goal should be to reach that balance, not to try to make the organic nature of a society fit into the mold of a crackpot ideology.
So my "utopia" would be for politicians to take data from the world and make a decision objectively...not arrive at a decision based upon an ideology and try to fit the world into it using idiotic propaganda...and that's exactly what these folks want. They want to replace two-party bickering that, at very the least, keeps too insane ideas in check...with pie in the sky "I trust capitalists" bull**** that will lead to failure.
Ergo, I'll take status quo over crazy.
Call me when you get some people that are true, objective, free thinkers. Replacing ideologues with ideologues is pointless.
Actually, it would be Plutarchy... but that can't happen in a free society where un-hindered economic competition keeps prices low and there is no government setting restrictions or subsidies to promote or retard a business or service. The laws of supply and demand are very simple. It's the government interference that causes the mountains of problems. In a free society it would be so hard for a corporation to become a monopoly because as soon as it's profit potential is realized, there will competitors undercutting to get in on the action, thereby forcing the prices to stay low. I think it was Tacitus who said "The more corrupt the state, the more it regulates", do you think we're there?
Yeah, that whole widget maker thing. The unfortunate thing about that is that there are essential industries. And industries with high barriers of entry. And oligopolies. Capitalists do not keep themselves in check...never have never will. It's as if one wishes a system based upon greed-instincts could somehow keep said instinct in check. It would be nice if the world magically worked like that, but it doesn't. I could just as easily speak of the communal brilliance of Marxism. It looked just as great on paper. For each bread line, there is an Enron...for each USSR, a Somalia...
Quote:
But it goes well beyond the economy. How about the simple freedom to dictate for yourself what you put into your body?
That's an interesting conundrum, actually. Take heroin. Nobody should be allowed to use that stuff. Why? Because using that stuff makes you a social problem. Addiction leads to crime and the deletion of a potentially useful worker. So, yes, the gov't should restrict what you take if its a public health risk. There needs to be a workable balance.
See...THIS is the problem I have with ideologues. They pretend that the world has no shades of gray that smack their utopian ideas in the face with reality.
Quote:
Maybe you support this nanny state of affairs we have, but I think I'm far more capable of running my own life, than an out of control government that can't balance their checkbook.
No...but the libertarian solution is at best equally dumb...at worst disastrously worse. Again. See: Somalia. A picture of anarchist libertarianism. Just because its "different" doesn't make it good. And history has shown rather well that unchecked capitalism typically isn't good. Come up with a better idea for your hypothetical revolution. I ain't buyin' what you're sellin'. Thanks.
A thumbnail definition: In the U.S., the Libertarian Party denotes a belief that the powers of government should be very strictly limited, e.g. to foreign affairs, national defense, law enforcement, etc. Libertarians believe that government has no business providing health care, old-age pensions, managing the economy, etc., etc. Libertarians, unlike anarchists, believe in the rule of law, but they are very much against the legislation of morality. Libertarians support drug legalization, for example, on the theory that people have the right to do what they want as long as it doesn't injure anyone else. But they have no problem with laws against murder, robbery, rape, etc.
Well my fellow city data dwellers. Why don't we start a chapter of the "Conservative Party" For Berkeley, Jefferson and Morgan counties? Let us stand and unite and take back our Government. In this the Greatest Country on God's green earth! Let freedom ring! Sons of liberty!
And industries with high barriers of entry [edited for brevity]....
Those barriers are put there by the government to LIMIT and CONTROL the industry. Free enterprise will control it, as the consumers (WE the people) are fully capable of doing any regulating on a very LOCAL scale. Why must you feel that big government is better at regulating YOUR community? Do you lack the same mental wattage as your government agent, or are you simply too lazy? I say that with the full knowledge that most ARE in fact too lazy to care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WVUPharm2007
Take heroin. Nobody should be allowed to use that stuff. Why? Because using that stuff makes you a social problem. Addiction leads to crime and the deletion of a potentially useful worker. So, yes, the gov't should restrict what you take if its a public health risk. There needs to be a workable balance.
You've answered for me. The balance is found when the heroin user infringes on anothers right. Does DUI/DWI ring a bell? Alcohol is the single most common drug used. It cause 85,000 deaths per year (2000 data). All illicit drug use, direct and indirect results in 17,000 deaths per year. Why do we tolerate alcohol? What's the difference? Legality? The government "allowing" this poison, but not another?
Quote:
Originally Posted by WVUPharm2007
No...but the libertarian solution is at best equally dumb...at worst disastrously worse. Again. See: Somalia. A picture of anarchist libertarianism. Just because its "different" doesn't make it good. And history has shown rather well that unchecked capitalism typically isn't good. Come up with a better idea for your hypothetical revolution. I ain't buyin' what you're sellin'. Thanks.
This is so far remove from an intelligent statement, I thought to ignore it. I may have been giving you too much credit.
I've been to Somalia. There are no free people there. It is in no way Libertarian. It is a Totalitarian regime.
What "history" do you have to indicate capitalism isnt "good"? The problem you fail to see is that capitalism works wonderfully without governmental intervention. GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE SOLUTION, IT IS THE PROBLEM. More of it WILL NOT fix the problem.
Buttercup: Provide me an example of a government run program that is done more efficiently than a private one. Those programs can be transitioned to private industry. The product will be cheaper, more efficient, and most of all, a better "bang for the buck". Why do you think private schools are so much better than public ones? One word: COMPETITION. They have to compete, and produce to keep their enrollment up. If they don't, the parents take their kids elswhere. Same if they over charge. It's quite simple. We as a people have had the government robbing us blind, and giving us a crappy product with no customer service for too many years. Pharm may be OK with that, are you? I sure a hell think my fellow Americans deserve better. Much better.
I heard a little a bit about this on the radio the other night...a very nasal person was commenting...mentioning Sara Palin and conservatives in the patrotic mold who are champions of liberty and perserving our Constitution.
Anything going on with this movement in West Virginia?
Anybody know the organizers?
I would like to get involved as soon as posssible...sounded like the Independants and Conservatives were absorbing the real Americans out of the Demo's and Repubs.
It really is time for a change.
Sarah is a reactionary rightist rabble-rouser which is a long way from a conservative.
The last american politico of note who was an actual conservative was Eisenhower.
I've been reading some history this week...'French Revolution....got its roots here...a very scary read.
Byrd had been re-elected for the good he has done...Rocky for the money bags that could not be touched by another...
A Republican cannot win those races even if he owned the mint...a new honest face must come from the Dems (which is impossible, Bob Kiss, Bob Wise, Nick Rahall lol lol ha ha ha, see what I mean) or a complete new protest party of the people.
To say that gov't involvement in everything is inherently bad is intellectually immature. There is a balance that needs to be reached to ensure economic stability and maximum efficiency depending on the economic conditions at that time. The goal should be to reach that balance, not to try to make the organic nature of a society fit into the mold of a crackpot ideology.
Call me when you get some people that are true, objective, free thinkers. Replacing ideologues with ideologues is pointless.
Pretty much my sentiments exactly. This great experiment of ours is not supposed to be about ideology, rather a system of governance that holds powers in check and promotes progress not just in government, but society as a whole.
But I frankly don't like dabbling too much in political hyperbole. With the partisanship we have been subjected to for the past decade, it's like fighting a rough surf. One pulling, the other pushing, and everything sane in the middle gets lost in a rip tide. I seek calmer waters, lol.
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.
