I think Biden won the debate comfortably. I think that the first debating format was useless and you have to counter key points as each party makes statements, otherwise you can say any lie / half truth and get away with it, on both sides. The moderator did a much better job than the first debate. Actually putting the tough questions to the parties.
The reason Biden won in my mind was: 1. Ryan arguing that Obama's reduction of US troops in Afghanistan, especially in dangerous areas, was putting the remaining troops lives in danger. Biden successfully got his point out that although US troops were reducing, they were being replaced by Afghani forces. 2. Romney saying the auto industry should have been left to fall over. Ryan was made to look poor here and didn't counter this fact at all. 3. Ryan being unable to explain how his tax plans are affordable. A big issue in the election is US debt and Romney appears to have just shoved all in in the hopes his plan will create huge growth. Big risk / reward. 4. Biden fended off the claims around wasted spending on the green initiatives by pointing out they performed very well overall and that Ryan had also requested and received funding. 5. I thought Ryan scored some good points around the whole Syria / embassy attacking mess, though pointing out that Ryan had a key input into embassy expense cutting was a good point. 6. I thought Biden looked bad going on and on about the 47% thing. Pretty stupid.
Biden was excellent, I was really surprised... best I've seen him. I usually find him intolerably fake (even for a politician) but there was none of that in the debate, he just nailed it. I was more surprised at Ryan though, considering how many were talking him up in this thread as a competent debater and policy wonk. I guess it's tough when you don't have much detail in your platform's policies. I don't think the public is going to go for the "trust me, he's uniquely qualified" rhetoric.
On October 13 2012 03:53 jdsowa wrote: Re: 3rd party candidates
You can't win an election in America if your views aren't mainstream. Because, in order to win an election, you need to have the most votes--which means you need to have mainstream views. 3rd party candidates become 3rd party candidates precisely because their views are outside of the mainstream. They could put Gary Johnson by himself on TV, and keep Romney and Obama off the air, and Johnson still wouldn't crack the double digit mark.
Ever heard of Ross Perot? He got about 20% of the vote, and at one point he was leading the polls with 39%.
Maybe part of the reason the VIEWS are out of the mainstream is because they do not get mainstream coverage. There is practically nowhere on television that you can hear a libertarian speak. South Park is probably the closest thing you can find that has wide exposure and a libertarian philosophy.
Take a look at Ron Paul. Every single time he ran, he got more exposure, and every time his exposure increased, his support increased. Now, Ron Paul isn't a true libertarian in a lot of ways. Gary Johnson would be more popular than Ron Paul given the chance imo. The media is a huge factor in determining just what "mainstream" means.
EVERY 3rd party candidate in the last few decades have been more on the conservative side (yes, libertarians are more conservative than liberals). So, in a democratic style of election (the more votes win) when a third party is in, it takes away from one of the others (unless, somehow the person is right on that line between Liberal and Conservative... not going to happen).
You vote for the person who you want to win in the primary. You vote against the person you don't want the most in the general election if you don't feel represented. Otherwise, don't you dare complain about the next four years.
On October 13 2012 04:15 mordek wrote: Reading and watching politics makes me depressed. I think I need to vent a little bit, but in a sad way.
This world is a complicated place. You can try really hard but solutions are never black and white, everyone can't be happy, and people get hurt. I really care about my fellow man and wish everyone had it good. It just doesn't seem like it's possible, the way this world is fundamentally.
I like the idea of helping the poor, the less fortunate, the down and out. I also like the idea of rewarding those who are honest, work hard, and stand for values and ethics. I mean, can anyone really disagree with that?
It just seems like the way we do government now is flawed, probably because people are flawed (voting for self interest for example), and neither of these candidates and none of their proposed changes give me hope for real change for the better. I want there to things in place to help people in need, because I care. It just burns me when friends/coworkers/acquaintances who are using food stamps and other govt assistance (daycare etc.) turn down extra hours/raises to not lose assistance and then go get manicures. Or free daycare because they're taking night classes in college (a good thing!) but bringing your sick kid to the daycare even though your husband is at home doing nothing in the middle of a month long "interview" process. All that while you're saying no to drinks with friends and going out to eat, passing on cable tv, etc. just you can you get ahead with what you've got.
It just makes me sad. Neither candidate is inspiring. I'm thankful we don't have more immediate concerns like a civil war but it's just a depressing time. /vent thanks.
It is very sad what the state of our society has come to. I do not think anyone will disagree that there are a lot of people taking advantage of the system; however, the more important question to ask ourselves is why do these people dissolve into this state of apathy and self-defeat. It is not sufficient to just write them off as lazy dead-beats, but rather, it's important to understand why they are lazy dead-beats. My belief is that it is fostered by this climate of terrible education and horrid social mobility. There is no one, at some point in life, who would not prefer to lead a nice, happy, successful life. But when the odds are heavily stacked against them and the light at the end of the tunnel seems ever-so-distant, it is to no surprise that they eventually crumble into a state of impassivity. The job of the government is to make sure that future generations are not sucked into this situation for the benefit of us all. Unfortunately, America as a whole is quite short-sighted, and cannot even wait a full four years, let alone a decade, to see the fruits of pertinent legislation.
I struggle seeing how legislation will change people's nature, or even if it can. I do appreciate your reply, thanks.
People are not born as lazy dead-beats. There's a reason for everything. While it may be hard to change the people who have fallen through the cracks at this point in time, it's pivotal that we don't let it happen with future generations or the problem will just exacerbate.
I can see the truth in that. Now the examples I gave were merely anecdotal but it just seems wrong how what's supposed to help seems to incentivize laziness. How can the government accurately assess who deserves what? It seems impossible to manage on that level. I do hope we can make changes to not allow people to fall through the cracks. I think it's going to have to look different than it does now though.
It is wrong. At no point in time should the government allow people to get away with gaming the system. What's even more wrong, however, is a society that forces people into this pitiful, pathetic state. There's an inherent social problem that needs to be addressed when people are relegated to this situation in the first place.
I was nodding my head when I read this. Five minutes later this popped up: is society = government. Obviously they are related. I agree society has a responsibility, a burden, to care for those that are needy or oppressed. Is that also the government's? It seems difficult to mandate social responsibility. I feel like I'm scratching the surface of something much deeper.
Edit: letter
The one thing we must keep in mind is that we are far from a collectivist society. True collectivist societies are able to function relatively well in spite of government and/or without government. The U.S., for the most part, is not. Those who say things like welfare should mainly be left in the hands of local communities/churches/etc. are, in my opinion, extremely naive. Not only do people fall through the cracks, entire communities continue to fall through as well, and there's always the possibility of communities engaging in hostilities towards one another which requires government intervention.
However, we obviously do not want a government that arbitrarily treads on the rights of the people, and we also cannot afford to have a government that turns a blind eye to any suffering. A government that is too strong is too hard to control, and a government that is too weak is largely ineffective (and that's why we traded the Articles of Confederation for the Constitution).
My ideal notion of government has always been a government that can work side-by-side with the people, a government that is neither tyrannical nor feeble but rather a government that is a friend--a government that grants you aid when it's needed and tells you to get your shit together when you stray. Currently our government is but a skank whore, sniffing the leftovers of the rich and powerful. Follow the money and you'll find everything that's wrong with our government on both sides of the political spectrum.
On October 13 2012 04:15 mordek wrote: Reading and watching politics makes me depressed. I think I need to vent a little bit, but in a sad way.
This world is a complicated place. You can try really hard but solutions are never black and white, everyone can't be happy, and people get hurt. I really care about my fellow man and wish everyone had it good. It just doesn't seem like it's possible, the way this world is fundamentally.
I like the idea of helping the poor, the less fortunate, the down and out. I also like the idea of rewarding those who are honest, work hard, and stand for values and ethics. I mean, can anyone really disagree with that?
It just seems like the way we do government now is flawed, probably because people are flawed (voting for self interest for example), and neither of these candidates and none of their proposed changes give me hope for real change for the better. I want there to things in place to help people in need, because I care. It just burns me when friends/coworkers/acquaintances who are using food stamps and other govt assistance (daycare etc.) turn down extra hours/raises to not lose assistance and then go get manicures. Or free daycare because they're taking night classes in college (a good thing!) but bringing your sick kid to the daycare even though your husband is at home doing nothing in the middle of a month long "interview" process. All that while you're saying no to drinks with friends and going out to eat, passing on cable tv, etc. just you can you get ahead with what you've got.
It just makes me sad. Neither candidate is inspiring. I'm thankful we don't have more immediate concerns like a civil war but it's just a depressing time. /vent thanks.
It is very sad what the state of our society has come to. I do not think anyone will disagree that there are a lot of people taking advantage of the system; however, the more important question to ask ourselves is why do these people dissolve into this state of apathy and self-defeat. It is not sufficient to just write them off as lazy dead-beats, but rather, it's important to understand why they are lazy dead-beats. My belief is that it is fostered by this climate of terrible education and horrid social mobility. There is no one, at some point in life, who would not prefer to lead a nice, happy, successful life. But when the odds are heavily stacked against them and the light at the end of the tunnel seems ever-so-distant, it is to no surprise that they eventually crumble into a state of impassivity. The job of the government is to make sure that future generations are not sucked into this situation for the benefit of us all. Unfortunately, America as a whole is quite short-sighted, and cannot even wait a full four years, let alone a decade, to see the fruits of pertinent legislation.
I struggle seeing how legislation will change people's nature, or even if it can. I do appreciate your reply, thanks.
People are not born as lazy dead-beats. There's a reason for everything. While it may be hard to change the people who have fallen through the cracks at this point in time, it's pivotal that we don't let it happen with future generations or the problem will just exacerbate.
I can see the truth in that. Now the examples I gave were merely anecdotal but it just seems wrong how what's supposed to help seems to incentivize laziness. How can the government accurately assess who deserves what? It seems impossible to manage on that level. I do hope we can make changes to not allow people to fall through the cracks. I think it's going to have to look different than it does now though.
It is wrong. At no point in time should the government allow people to get away with gaming the system. What's even more wrong, however, is a society that forces people into this pitiful, pathetic state. There's an inherent social problem that needs to be addressed when people are relegated to this situation in the first place.
I was nodding my head when I read this. Five minutes later this popped up: is society = government. Obviously they are related. I agree society has a responsibility, a burden, to care for those that are needy or oppressed. Is that also the government's? It seems difficult to mandate social responsibility. I feel like I'm scratching the surface of something much deeper.
Edit: letter
The one thing we must keep in mind is that we are far from a collectivist society. True collectivist societies are able to function relatively well in spite of government and/or without government. The U.S., for the most part, is not. Those who say things like welfare should mainly be left in the hands of local communities/churches/etc. are, in my opinion, extremely naive. Not only do people fall through the cracks, entire communities continue to fall through as well, and there's always the possibility of communities engaging in hostilities towards one another which requires government intervention.
However, we obviously do not want a government that arbitrarily treads on the rights of the people, and we also cannot afford to have a government that turns a blind eye to any suffering. A government that is too strong is too hard to control, and a government that is too weak is largely ineffective (and that's why we traded the Articles of Confederation for the Constitution).
My ideal notion of government has always been a government that can work side-by-side with the people, a government that is neither tyrannical nor feeble but rather a government that is a friend--a government that grants you aid when it's needed and tells you to get your shit together when you stray. Currently our government is but a skank whore, sniffing the leftovers of the rich and powerful. Follow the money and you'll find everything that's wrong with our government on both sides of the political spectrum.
You make a good point about collectivist societies. My first reaction since local communities/churches can be biased or just unintentionally miss individuals or communities would be shift power to the states from the federal government.
Also, jd, thanks for the youtube, I found that thought provoking.
On October 13 2012 04:15 mordek wrote: Reading and watching politics makes me depressed. I think I need to vent a little bit, but in a sad way.
This world is a complicated place. You can try really hard but solutions are never black and white, everyone can't be happy, and people get hurt. I really care about my fellow man and wish everyone had it good. It just doesn't seem like it's possible, the way this world is fundamentally.
I like the idea of helping the poor, the less fortunate, the down and out. I also like the idea of rewarding those who are honest, work hard, and stand for values and ethics. I mean, can anyone really disagree with that?
It just seems like the way we do government now is flawed, probably because people are flawed (voting for self interest for example), and neither of these candidates and none of their proposed changes give me hope for real change for the better. I want there to things in place to help people in need, because I care. It just burns me when friends/coworkers/acquaintances who are using food stamps and other govt assistance (daycare etc.) turn down extra hours/raises to not lose assistance and then go get manicures. Or free daycare because they're taking night classes in college (a good thing!) but bringing your sick kid to the daycare even though your husband is at home doing nothing in the middle of a month long "interview" process. All that while you're saying no to drinks with friends and going out to eat, passing on cable tv, etc. just you can you get ahead with what you've got.
It just makes me sad. Neither candidate is inspiring. I'm thankful we don't have more immediate concerns like a civil war but it's just a depressing time. /vent thanks.
It is very sad what the state of our society has come to. I do not think anyone will disagree that there are a lot of people taking advantage of the system; however, the more important question to ask ourselves is why do these people dissolve into this state of apathy and self-defeat. It is not sufficient to just write them off as lazy dead-beats, but rather, it's important to understand why they are lazy dead-beats. My belief is that it is fostered by this climate of terrible education and horrid social mobility. There is no one, at some point in life, who would not prefer to lead a nice, happy, successful life. But when the odds are heavily stacked against them and the light at the end of the tunnel seems ever-so-distant, it is to no surprise that they eventually crumble into a state of impassivity. The job of the government is to make sure that future generations are not sucked into this situation for the benefit of us all. Unfortunately, America as a whole is quite short-sighted, and cannot even wait a full four years, let alone a decade, to see the fruits of pertinent legislation.
I struggle seeing how legislation will change people's nature, or even if it can. I do appreciate your reply, thanks.
People are not born as lazy dead-beats. There's a reason for everything. While it may be hard to change the people who have fallen through the cracks at this point in time, it's pivotal that we don't let it happen with future generations or the problem will just exacerbate.
I can see the truth in that. Now the examples I gave were merely anecdotal but it just seems wrong how what's supposed to help seems to incentivize laziness. How can the government accurately assess who deserves what? It seems impossible to manage on that level. I do hope we can make changes to not allow people to fall through the cracks. I think it's going to have to look different than it does now though.
It is wrong. At no point in time should the government allow people to get away with gaming the system. What's even more wrong, however, is a society that forces people into this pitiful, pathetic state. There's an inherent social problem that needs to be addressed when people are relegated to this situation in the first place.
I was nodding my head when I read this. Five minutes later this popped up: is society = government. Obviously they are related. I agree society has a responsibility, a burden, to care for those that are needy or oppressed. Is that also the government's? It seems difficult to mandate social responsibility. I feel like I'm scratching the surface of something much deeper.
Edit: letter
The one thing we must keep in mind is that we are far from a collectivist society. True collectivist societies are able to function relatively well in spite of government and/or without government. The U.S., for the most part, is not. Those who say things like welfare should mainly be left in the hands of local communities/churches/etc. are, in my opinion, extremely naive. Not only do people fall through the cracks, entire communities continue to fall through as well, and there's always the possibility of communities engaging in hostilities towards one another which requires government intervention.
However, we obviously do not want a government that arbitrarily treads on the rights of the people, and we also cannot afford to have a government that turns a blind eye to any suffering. A government that is too strong is too hard to control, and a government that is too weak is largely ineffective (and that's why we traded the Articles of Confederation for the Constitution).
My ideal notion of government has always been a government that can work side-by-side with the people, a government that is neither tyrannical nor feeble but rather a government that is a friend--a government that grants you aid when it's needed and tells you to get your shit together when you stray. Currently our government is but a skank whore, sniffing the leftovers of the rich and powerful. Follow the money and you'll find everything that's wrong with our government on both sides of the political spectrum.
Government as a "friend"?
Let's call government for what it is. It is an organization which is granted a monopoly on the use of force within a given geographic area. The bigger that organization, the more force is used in society, and therefore the more people who use that force to take advantage of others (ie. those rich and powerful you were referring to). Personally, I think a society in which force is a rare, last resort is the ideal. A society where force is only justified for absolute necessity, such as maintaining order, enforcing contracts, protecting from outside threat, preventing starvation and other severe poverty, etc.
Government should not be regarded as a friend, but as a necessary evil which must be restrained.
On October 13 2012 04:15 mordek wrote: Reading and watching politics makes me depressed. I think I need to vent a little bit, but in a sad way.
This world is a complicated place. You can try really hard but solutions are never black and white, everyone can't be happy, and people get hurt. I really care about my fellow man and wish everyone had it good. It just doesn't seem like it's possible, the way this world is fundamentally.
I like the idea of helping the poor, the less fortunate, the down and out. I also like the idea of rewarding those who are honest, work hard, and stand for values and ethics. I mean, can anyone really disagree with that?
It just seems like the way we do government now is flawed, probably because people are flawed (voting for self interest for example), and neither of these candidates and none of their proposed changes give me hope for real change for the better. I want there to things in place to help people in need, because I care. It just burns me when friends/coworkers/acquaintances who are using food stamps and other govt assistance (daycare etc.) turn down extra hours/raises to not lose assistance and then go get manicures. Or free daycare because they're taking night classes in college (a good thing!) but bringing your sick kid to the daycare even though your husband is at home doing nothing in the middle of a month long "interview" process. All that while you're saying no to drinks with friends and going out to eat, passing on cable tv, etc. just you can you get ahead with what you've got.
It just makes me sad. Neither candidate is inspiring. I'm thankful we don't have more immediate concerns like a civil war but it's just a depressing time. /vent thanks.
It is very sad what the state of our society has come to. I do not think anyone will disagree that there are a lot of people taking advantage of the system; however, the more important question to ask ourselves is why do these people dissolve into this state of apathy and self-defeat. It is not sufficient to just write them off as lazy dead-beats, but rather, it's important to understand why they are lazy dead-beats. My belief is that it is fostered by this climate of terrible education and horrid social mobility. There is no one, at some point in life, who would not prefer to lead a nice, happy, successful life. But when the odds are heavily stacked against them and the light at the end of the tunnel seems ever-so-distant, it is to no surprise that they eventually crumble into a state of impassivity. The job of the government is to make sure that future generations are not sucked into this situation for the benefit of us all. Unfortunately, America as a whole is quite short-sighted, and cannot even wait a full four years, let alone a decade, to see the fruits of pertinent legislation.
I struggle seeing how legislation will change people's nature, or even if it can. I do appreciate your reply, thanks.
People are not born as lazy dead-beats. There's a reason for everything. While it may be hard to change the people who have fallen through the cracks at this point in time, it's pivotal that we don't let it happen with future generations or the problem will just exacerbate.
I can see the truth in that. Now the examples I gave were merely anecdotal but it just seems wrong how what's supposed to help seems to incentivize laziness. How can the government accurately assess who deserves what? It seems impossible to manage on that level. I do hope we can make changes to not allow people to fall through the cracks. I think it's going to have to look different than it does now though.
It is wrong. At no point in time should the government allow people to get away with gaming the system. What's even more wrong, however, is a society that forces people into this pitiful, pathetic state. There's an inherent social problem that needs to be addressed when people are relegated to this situation in the first place.
I was nodding my head when I read this. Five minutes later this popped up: is society = government. Obviously they are related. I agree society has a responsibility, a burden, to care for those that are needy or oppressed. Is that also the government's? It seems difficult to mandate social responsibility. I feel like I'm scratching the surface of something much deeper.
Edit: letter
The one thing we must keep in mind is that we are far from a collectivist society. True collectivist societies are able to function relatively well in spite of government and/or without government. The U.S., for the most part, is not. Those who say things like welfare should mainly be left in the hands of local communities/churches/etc. are, in my opinion, extremely naive. Not only do people fall through the cracks, entire communities continue to fall through as well, and there's always the possibility of communities engaging in hostilities towards one another which requires government intervention.
However, we obviously do not want a government that arbitrarily treads on the rights of the people, and we also cannot afford to have a government that turns a blind eye to any suffering. A government that is too strong is too hard to control, and a government that is too weak is largely ineffective (and that's why we traded the Articles of Confederation for the Constitution).
My ideal notion of government has always been a government that can work side-by-side with the people, a government that is neither tyrannical nor feeble but rather a government that is a friend--a government that grants you aid when it's needed and tells you to get your shit together when you stray. Currently our government is but a skank whore, sniffing the leftovers of the rich and powerful. Follow the money and you'll find everything that's wrong with our government on both sides of the political spectrum.
Government as a "friend"?
Let's call government for what it is. It is an organization which is granted a monopoly on the use of force within a given geographic area. The bigger that organization, the more force is used in society, and therefore the more people who use that force to take advantage of others (ie. those rich and powerful you were referring to). Personally, I think a society in which force is a rare, last resort is the ideal. A society where force is only justified for absolute necessity, such as maintaining order, enforcing contracts, protecting from outside threat, preventing starvation and other severe poverty, etc.
Government should not be regarded as a friend, but as a necessary evil which must be restrained.
Except the government is not granted a monopoly on the use of force within a given geographic area. In its intended form it is the conglomeration of ideas that make up the voter base and any abuse of power can (should) be dealt with in many different ways. Nobody wants a government that wildly swings its club around, as I mentioned above; however, the government in its current form is the result of an extremely apathetic and/or hostile public that misses the target for the decoy. It is not government that people should be directing their hatred towards but rather those who have molded it into its current shape. Somewhere along the way the people have forgotten that the government is, in the end, made up of people subject to the same rules of nature and humanity as the rest of us. What we should be striving for is not a pathetic excuse for a government but an efficient, effective, and fair government. Ill will should be directed towards those in the shadows pulling the strings, getting us to fight amongst ourselves and destroying our country.
On October 13 2012 04:15 mordek wrote: Reading and watching politics makes me depressed. I think I need to vent a little bit, but in a sad way.
This world is a complicated place. You can try really hard but solutions are never black and white, everyone can't be happy, and people get hurt. I really care about my fellow man and wish everyone had it good. It just doesn't seem like it's possible, the way this world is fundamentally.
I like the idea of helping the poor, the less fortunate, the down and out. I also like the idea of rewarding those who are honest, work hard, and stand for values and ethics. I mean, can anyone really disagree with that?
It just seems like the way we do government now is flawed, probably because people are flawed (voting for self interest for example), and neither of these candidates and none of their proposed changes give me hope for real change for the better. I want there to things in place to help people in need, because I care. It just burns me when friends/coworkers/acquaintances who are using food stamps and other govt assistance (daycare etc.) turn down extra hours/raises to not lose assistance and then go get manicures. Or free daycare because they're taking night classes in college (a good thing!) but bringing your sick kid to the daycare even though your husband is at home doing nothing in the middle of a month long "interview" process. All that while you're saying no to drinks with friends and going out to eat, passing on cable tv, etc. just you can you get ahead with what you've got.
It just makes me sad. Neither candidate is inspiring. I'm thankful we don't have more immediate concerns like a civil war but it's just a depressing time. /vent thanks.
It is very sad what the state of our society has come to. I do not think anyone will disagree that there are a lot of people taking advantage of the system; however, the more important question to ask ourselves is why do these people dissolve into this state of apathy and self-defeat. It is not sufficient to just write them off as lazy dead-beats, but rather, it's important to understand why they are lazy dead-beats. My belief is that it is fostered by this climate of terrible education and horrid social mobility. There is no one, at some point in life, who would not prefer to lead a nice, happy, successful life. But when the odds are heavily stacked against them and the light at the end of the tunnel seems ever-so-distant, it is to no surprise that they eventually crumble into a state of impassivity. The job of the government is to make sure that future generations are not sucked into this situation for the benefit of us all. Unfortunately, America as a whole is quite short-sighted, and cannot even wait a full four years, let alone a decade, to see the fruits of pertinent legislation.
I struggle seeing how legislation will change people's nature, or even if it can. I do appreciate your reply, thanks.
People are not born as lazy dead-beats. There's a reason for everything. While it may be hard to change the people who have fallen through the cracks at this point in time, it's pivotal that we don't let it happen with future generations or the problem will just exacerbate.
I can see the truth in that. Now the examples I gave were merely anecdotal but it just seems wrong how what's supposed to help seems to incentivize laziness. How can the government accurately assess who deserves what? It seems impossible to manage on that level. I do hope we can make changes to not allow people to fall through the cracks. I think it's going to have to look different than it does now though.
It is wrong. At no point in time should the government allow people to get away with gaming the system. What's even more wrong, however, is a society that forces people into this pitiful, pathetic state. There's an inherent social problem that needs to be addressed when people are relegated to this situation in the first place.
I was nodding my head when I read this. Five minutes later this popped up: is society = government. Obviously they are related. I agree society has a responsibility, a burden, to care for those that are needy or oppressed. Is that also the government's? It seems difficult to mandate social responsibility. I feel like I'm scratching the surface of something much deeper.
Edit: letter
The one thing we must keep in mind is that we are far from a collectivist society. True collectivist societies are able to function relatively well in spite of government and/or without government. The U.S., for the most part, is not. Those who say things like welfare should mainly be left in the hands of local communities/churches/etc. are, in my opinion, extremely naive. Not only do people fall through the cracks, entire communities continue to fall through as well, and there's always the possibility of communities engaging in hostilities towards one another which requires government intervention.
However, we obviously do not want a government that arbitrarily treads on the rights of the people, and we also cannot afford to have a government that turns a blind eye to any suffering. A government that is too strong is too hard to control, and a government that is too weak is largely ineffective (and that's why we traded the Articles of Confederation for the Constitution).
My ideal notion of government has always been a government that can work side-by-side with the people, a government that is neither tyrannical nor feeble but rather a government that is a friend--a government that grants you aid when it's needed and tells you to get your shit together when you stray. Currently our government is but a skank whore, sniffing the leftovers of the rich and powerful. Follow the money and you'll find everything that's wrong with our government on both sides of the political spectrum.
Government as a "friend"?
Let's call government for what it is. It is an organization which is granted a monopoly on the use of force within a given geographic area. The bigger that organization, the more force is used in society, and therefore the more people who use that force to take advantage of others (ie. those rich and powerful you were referring to). Personally, I think a society in which force is a rare, last resort is the ideal. A society where force is only justified for absolute necessity, such as maintaining order, enforcing contracts, protecting from outside threat, preventing starvation and other severe poverty, etc.
Government should not be regarded as a friend, but as a necessary evil which must be restrained.
Except the government is not granted a monopoly on the use of force within a given geographic area. In its intended form it is the conglomeration of ideas that make up the voter base and any abuse of power can (should) be dealt with in many different ways. Nobody wants a government that wildly swings its club around, as I mentioned above; however, the government in its current form is the result of an extremely apathetic and/or hostile public that misses the target for the decoy. It is not government that people should be directing their hatred towards but rather those who have molded it into its current shape. Somewhere along the way the people have forgotten that the government is, in the end, made up of people subject to the same rules of nature and humanity as the rest of us. What we should be striving for is not a pathetic excuse for a government but an efficient, effective, and fair government. Ill will should be directed towards those in the shadows pulling the strings, getting us to fight amongst ourselves and destroying our country.
Your argument goes too far in saying the government should be a "friend". It's not. The government requires you to give them resources (taxes) and obey rules (laws). In extreme cases, it may require service of you and possibly order you to do something that will result in your death. If you refuse to do so, the government reserves the right to take away your freedoms, possibly even imprison you.
It's better put this way: Ultimately, what people want is a government that doesn’t allow them to make bad decisions, rewards merit, makes everyone equal, and favors their social group. But market economies grow prosperous when built in favor of the business class. When governments intervene to shift resources and profits away from entrepreneurial and productive groups and shift it to others (i.e. consumers, bureaucrats, farmers), then economic development and growth will suffer. A government that takes a long-term view of its citizens’ best interests and invests to make them healthier and educated will do better than one that tries to buy or force prosperity on them.
So we have to find ourselves some degree of allowing the government to create laws and guide policy in a way that takes society's interests in a sustainably long-term manner, generating enough growth to pay for it. I don't think it's wrong for people to say we should be wary of giving the government too much power such that it feels it should take away choices from citizens because bureaucrats know better.
I don't think the notion that government or politics has lost its way is helpful, btw. The game is the same as always, it's about the power to move society. When Obama says new regulations or taxes on the rich will help empower the poor masses to make better decisions or when Romney says cutting taxes on businesses will unleash them to generate growth, do you believe them? When Obama says it is legal for him to kill someone with a drone but he won't tell you who or why or when Romney says it is legal to try suspected terrorists behind closed doors in military tribunals, do you believe them?
On October 13 2012 14:30 sam!zdat wrote: jd how does your utopian society make plans?
edit: and what happens when the market crashes
Make plans? Like what? Individuals and individuals in voluntary groups make plans. Government is for necessity, if a necessity arises, then government can be appealed to, but I don't advocate the use of force to seek some sort of minor goal.
I could get in a long winded debate regarding the reason for market crashes, but after the fact, there is nothing wrong with limited government deficit spending to avert financial disaster so long as the debt is recovered when the market recovers and not exceeded to create another market bubble and recession.
Well it's not hard to find evidence that America is going down the tubes and it's an irreversible trend. The candidates lie through their teeth to the point where every issue is a matter of he said/she said. But really their hand is forced by the media's focus on sensationalized soundbites to drive profits. The effects on Congressional productivity are the most devastating of all. There's a vicious cycle that is entrenched on a systemic level. What a shitty country lol
On October 12 2012 13:56 paralleluniverse wrote: I still think it's ridiculous that the Republicans have managed to lie their way into convincing people that their tax plan. which is devoid of details, can work through massive economic growth.
In the next debate, Obama should go over the details in these 6 partisan reports which suggest that Romney's plan can work, and use the same arguments we've shown here to debunk these reports, by pointing out how they ignore parts of Romney's plan, redefine middle class, and use very optimistic growth assumptions.
It's time to get inside the details of the "6 studies", just like we've done in this thread.
You have to remember that facts are "facts". When the people you're trying to convince are being bombarded by this:
it's a pretty damn steep uphill battle. Better to just act like you're right and say it with a straight face, Romney proved that in debate 1.
/I like the 5.1% gov't worker unemployment.
Government worker unemployment???
What does that even mean?
You can define government worker. You can defined unemployed. But how can you defined unemployed government worker?
1 minus #Government workers divided by #searching for government work? It's a completely undefinable and meaningless number.
Government employment is falling like crazy. If there was more stimulus to keep it growing like the rate under Bush, employment would be more like 7%.
Misleading chart is misleading. Show me what the graph looks like before Bush took office, and before Obama took office. Hurts to know math and how charts work, doesn't it? It's all in the trends. Looks bad right now, but let me see what the before chart looks like please. 99/00 while under Clinton and 07/08 under Bush.
There was a huge surge of jobs because we had just started going to war, and everyone knows going to war gets the economy up and running.
It is very sad what the state of our society has come to. I do not think anyone will disagree that there are a lot of people taking advantage of the system; however, the more important question to ask ourselves is why do these people dissolve into this state of apathy and self-defeat. It is not sufficient to just write them off as lazy dead-beats, but rather, it's important to understand why they are lazy dead-beats. My belief is that it is fostered by this climate of terrible education and horrid social mobility. There is no one, at some point in life, who would not prefer to lead a nice, happy, successful life. But when the odds are heavily stacked against them and the light at the end of the tunnel seems ever-so-distant, it is to no surprise that they eventually crumble into a state of impassivity. The job of the government is to make sure that future generations are not sucked into this situation for the benefit of us all. Unfortunately, America as a whole is quite short-sighted, and cannot even wait a full four years, let alone a decade, to see the fruits of pertinent legislation.
I struggle seeing how legislation will change people's nature, or even if it can. I do appreciate your reply, thanks.
People are not born as lazy dead-beats. There's a reason for everything. While it may be hard to change the people who have fallen through the cracks at this point in time, it's pivotal that we don't let it happen with future generations or the problem will just exacerbate.
I can see the truth in that. Now the examples I gave were merely anecdotal but it just seems wrong how what's supposed to help seems to incentivize laziness. How can the government accurately assess who deserves what? It seems impossible to manage on that level. I do hope we can make changes to not allow people to fall through the cracks. I think it's going to have to look different than it does now though.
It is wrong. At no point in time should the government allow people to get away with gaming the system. What's even more wrong, however, is a society that forces people into this pitiful, pathetic state. There's an inherent social problem that needs to be addressed when people are relegated to this situation in the first place.
I was nodding my head when I read this. Five minutes later this popped up: is society = government. Obviously they are related. I agree society has a responsibility, a burden, to care for those that are needy or oppressed. Is that also the government's? It seems difficult to mandate social responsibility. I feel like I'm scratching the surface of something much deeper.
Edit: letter
The one thing we must keep in mind is that we are far from a collectivist society. True collectivist societies are able to function relatively well in spite of government and/or without government. The U.S., for the most part, is not. Those who say things like welfare should mainly be left in the hands of local communities/churches/etc. are, in my opinion, extremely naive. Not only do people fall through the cracks, entire communities continue to fall through as well, and there's always the possibility of communities engaging in hostilities towards one another which requires government intervention.
However, we obviously do not want a government that arbitrarily treads on the rights of the people, and we also cannot afford to have a government that turns a blind eye to any suffering. A government that is too strong is too hard to control, and a government that is too weak is largely ineffective (and that's why we traded the Articles of Confederation for the Constitution).
My ideal notion of government has always been a government that can work side-by-side with the people, a government that is neither tyrannical nor feeble but rather a government that is a friend--a government that grants you aid when it's needed and tells you to get your shit together when you stray. Currently our government is but a skank whore, sniffing the leftovers of the rich and powerful. Follow the money and you'll find everything that's wrong with our government on both sides of the political spectrum.
Government as a "friend"?
Let's call government for what it is. It is an organization which is granted a monopoly on the use of force within a given geographic area. The bigger that organization, the more force is used in society, and therefore the more people who use that force to take advantage of others (ie. those rich and powerful you were referring to). Personally, I think a society in which force is a rare, last resort is the ideal. A society where force is only justified for absolute necessity, such as maintaining order, enforcing contracts, protecting from outside threat, preventing starvation and other severe poverty, etc.
Government should not be regarded as a friend, but as a necessary evil which must be restrained.
Except the government is not granted a monopoly on the use of force within a given geographic area. In its intended form it is the conglomeration of ideas that make up the voter base and any abuse of power can (should) be dealt with in many different ways. Nobody wants a government that wildly swings its club around, as I mentioned above; however, the government in its current form is the result of an extremely apathetic and/or hostile public that misses the target for the decoy. It is not government that people should be directing their hatred towards but rather those who have molded it into its current shape. Somewhere along the way the people have forgotten that the government is, in the end, made up of people subject to the same rules of nature and humanity as the rest of us. What we should be striving for is not a pathetic excuse for a government but an efficient, effective, and fair government. Ill will should be directed towards those in the shadows pulling the strings, getting us to fight amongst ourselves and destroying our country.
Your argument goes too far in saying the government should be a "friend". It's not. The government requires you to give them resources (taxes) and obey rules (laws). In extreme cases, it may require service of you and if necessary, possibly order you to do something that will result in your death. If you refuse to do so, the government reserves the right to take away your freedoms, possibly even imprison you.
It's better put this way: Ultimately, what people want is a government that doesn’t allow them to make bad decisions, rewards merit, makes everyone equal, and favors their social group. But market economies grow prosperous when built in favor of the business class. When governments intervene to shift resources and profits away from entrepreneurial and productive groups and shift it to others (i.e. consumers, bureaucrats, poor rice farmers), then economic development and growth will suffer. A government that takes a long-term view of its citizens’ best interests and invests to make them healthier and educated will do better than one that tries to buy or force prosperity on them.
So we have to find ourselves some degree of allowing the government to create laws and guide policy in a way that takes society's interests in a sustainably long-term manner, generating enough growth to pay for it. I don't think it's wrong for people to say we should be wary of giving the government too much power such that it feels it should take away choices from citizens because bureaucrats know better.
I don't think the notion that government or politics has lost its way is helpful, btw. The game is the same as always, it's about the power to move society. When Obama says new regulations or taxes on the rich will help empower the poor masses make better decisions or when Romney says cutting taxes on businesses will unleash them to generate growth, do you believe them?
Society deems taxes and laws necessary, not government. In fact society deemed government necessary. Government was not created out of a vacuum and neither are laws. Shifting resources and profits away from the filthy rich is not a short-sighted investment, it is the best long-term investment we can make. Trickle-down does not work, and the most prosperous societies are those with the strongest middle-class. It benefits no one but those at the top if there were no taxes. You're right, giving a poor man who has already given up on leading the life he's always wanted aid may not necessarily empower him, but maybe it'll help empower his children and not relegate them to the same lifestyle as their parents. That's what's important.
The game is not the same as always, and you're incredibly blind if you really believe that. Government is being bought off like never before. There has always been some amount of money in politics but what it is at this point of time is disgusting. Instead of blaming everything on government, how about people actually rise up and get all of the money OUT of politics so that our elected officials can cater to the public before having to reach into the pockets of scumbags who care not one bit about our nation nor the people in it?
On October 13 2012 04:50 mordek wrote: [quote] I struggle seeing how legislation will change people's nature, or even if it can. I do appreciate your reply, thanks.
People are not born as lazy dead-beats. There's a reason for everything. While it may be hard to change the people who have fallen through the cracks at this point in time, it's pivotal that we don't let it happen with future generations or the problem will just exacerbate.
I can see the truth in that. Now the examples I gave were merely anecdotal but it just seems wrong how what's supposed to help seems to incentivize laziness. How can the government accurately assess who deserves what? It seems impossible to manage on that level. I do hope we can make changes to not allow people to fall through the cracks. I think it's going to have to look different than it does now though.
It is wrong. At no point in time should the government allow people to get away with gaming the system. What's even more wrong, however, is a society that forces people into this pitiful, pathetic state. There's an inherent social problem that needs to be addressed when people are relegated to this situation in the first place.
I was nodding my head when I read this. Five minutes later this popped up: is society = government. Obviously they are related. I agree society has a responsibility, a burden, to care for those that are needy or oppressed. Is that also the government's? It seems difficult to mandate social responsibility. I feel like I'm scratching the surface of something much deeper.
Edit: letter
The one thing we must keep in mind is that we are far from a collectivist society. True collectivist societies are able to function relatively well in spite of government and/or without government. The U.S., for the most part, is not. Those who say things like welfare should mainly be left in the hands of local communities/churches/etc. are, in my opinion, extremely naive. Not only do people fall through the cracks, entire communities continue to fall through as well, and there's always the possibility of communities engaging in hostilities towards one another which requires government intervention.
However, we obviously do not want a government that arbitrarily treads on the rights of the people, and we also cannot afford to have a government that turns a blind eye to any suffering. A government that is too strong is too hard to control, and a government that is too weak is largely ineffective (and that's why we traded the Articles of Confederation for the Constitution).
My ideal notion of government has always been a government that can work side-by-side with the people, a government that is neither tyrannical nor feeble but rather a government that is a friend--a government that grants you aid when it's needed and tells you to get your shit together when you stray. Currently our government is but a skank whore, sniffing the leftovers of the rich and powerful. Follow the money and you'll find everything that's wrong with our government on both sides of the political spectrum.
Government as a "friend"?
Let's call government for what it is. It is an organization which is granted a monopoly on the use of force within a given geographic area. The bigger that organization, the more force is used in society, and therefore the more people who use that force to take advantage of others (ie. those rich and powerful you were referring to). Personally, I think a society in which force is a rare, last resort is the ideal. A society where force is only justified for absolute necessity, such as maintaining order, enforcing contracts, protecting from outside threat, preventing starvation and other severe poverty, etc.
Government should not be regarded as a friend, but as a necessary evil which must be restrained.
Except the government is not granted a monopoly on the use of force within a given geographic area. In its intended form it is the conglomeration of ideas that make up the voter base and any abuse of power can (should) be dealt with in many different ways. Nobody wants a government that wildly swings its club around, as I mentioned above; however, the government in its current form is the result of an extremely apathetic and/or hostile public that misses the target for the decoy. It is not government that people should be directing their hatred towards but rather those who have molded it into its current shape. Somewhere along the way the people have forgotten that the government is, in the end, made up of people subject to the same rules of nature and humanity as the rest of us. What we should be striving for is not a pathetic excuse for a government but an efficient, effective, and fair government. Ill will should be directed towards those in the shadows pulling the strings, getting us to fight amongst ourselves and destroying our country.
Your argument goes too far in saying the government should be a "friend". It's not. The government requires you to give them resources (taxes) and obey rules (laws). In extreme cases, it may require service of you and if necessary, possibly order you to do something that will result in your death. If you refuse to do so, the government reserves the right to take away your freedoms, possibly even imprison you.
It's better put this way: Ultimately, what people want is a government that doesn’t allow them to make bad decisions, rewards merit, makes everyone equal, and favors their social group. But market economies grow prosperous when built in favor of the business class. When governments intervene to shift resources and profits away from entrepreneurial and productive groups and shift it to others (i.e. consumers, bureaucrats, poor rice farmers), then economic development and growth will suffer. A government that takes a long-term view of its citizens’ best interests and invests to make them healthier and educated will do better than one that tries to buy or force prosperity on them.
So we have to find ourselves some degree of allowing the government to create laws and guide policy in a way that takes society's interests in a sustainably long-term manner, generating enough growth to pay for it. I don't think it's wrong for people to say we should be wary of giving the government too much power such that it feels it should take away choices from citizens because bureaucrats know better.
I don't think the notion that government or politics has lost its way is helpful, btw. The game is the same as always, it's about the power to move society. When Obama says new regulations or taxes on the rich will help empower the poor masses make better decisions or when Romney says cutting taxes on businesses will unleash them to generate growth, do you believe them?
Society deems taxes and laws necessary, not government. In fact society deemed government necessary. Government was not created out of a vacuum and neither are laws. Shifting resources and profits away from the filthy rich is not a short-sighted investment, it is the best long-term investment we can make. Trickle-down does not work, and the most prosperous societies are those with the strongest middle-class. It benefits no one but those at the top if there were no taxes. You're right, giving a poor man who has already given up on leading the life he's always wanted aid may not necessarily empower him, but maybe it'll help empower his children and not relegate them to the same lifestyle as their parents. That's what's important.
The game is not the same as always, and you're incredibly blind if you really believe that. Government is being bought off like never before. There has always been some amount of money in politics but what it is at this point of time is disgusting. Instead of blaming everything on government, how about people actually rise up and get all of the money OUT of politics so that our elected officials can cater to the public before having to reach into the pockets of scumbags who care not one bit about our nation nor the people in it?
Well, if it's money in politics that you think is the seminal issue of dirty politics, then America made a gigantic mistake electing Barack Obama, who hauled in money like never before against McCain who only used public funding.
But to be honest, I don't think it's the money that's the problem so much as the outsized influence of lobbyists. These are connected issues but they're not the same. The disease you're speaking of IMO is the credibility we give to experts and the way people are tempted to empower them in ways that open the door to corruption and self-serving. Of course, it is easier since lobbyists can buy their way into the door and convince politicians about their influence. But I don't think the problem will go away even if you get rid of money in politics so long as we have this cultural worship for experts.
People are not born as lazy dead-beats. There's a reason for everything. While it may be hard to change the people who have fallen through the cracks at this point in time, it's pivotal that we don't let it happen with future generations or the problem will just exacerbate.
I can see the truth in that. Now the examples I gave were merely anecdotal but it just seems wrong how what's supposed to help seems to incentivize laziness. How can the government accurately assess who deserves what? It seems impossible to manage on that level. I do hope we can make changes to not allow people to fall through the cracks. I think it's going to have to look different than it does now though.
It is wrong. At no point in time should the government allow people to get away with gaming the system. What's even more wrong, however, is a society that forces people into this pitiful, pathetic state. There's an inherent social problem that needs to be addressed when people are relegated to this situation in the first place.
I was nodding my head when I read this. Five minutes later this popped up: is society = government. Obviously they are related. I agree society has a responsibility, a burden, to care for those that are needy or oppressed. Is that also the government's? It seems difficult to mandate social responsibility. I feel like I'm scratching the surface of something much deeper.
Edit: letter
The one thing we must keep in mind is that we are far from a collectivist society. True collectivist societies are able to function relatively well in spite of government and/or without government. The U.S., for the most part, is not. Those who say things like welfare should mainly be left in the hands of local communities/churches/etc. are, in my opinion, extremely naive. Not only do people fall through the cracks, entire communities continue to fall through as well, and there's always the possibility of communities engaging in hostilities towards one another which requires government intervention.
However, we obviously do not want a government that arbitrarily treads on the rights of the people, and we also cannot afford to have a government that turns a blind eye to any suffering. A government that is too strong is too hard to control, and a government that is too weak is largely ineffective (and that's why we traded the Articles of Confederation for the Constitution).
My ideal notion of government has always been a government that can work side-by-side with the people, a government that is neither tyrannical nor feeble but rather a government that is a friend--a government that grants you aid when it's needed and tells you to get your shit together when you stray. Currently our government is but a skank whore, sniffing the leftovers of the rich and powerful. Follow the money and you'll find everything that's wrong with our government on both sides of the political spectrum.
Government as a "friend"?
Let's call government for what it is. It is an organization which is granted a monopoly on the use of force within a given geographic area. The bigger that organization, the more force is used in society, and therefore the more people who use that force to take advantage of others (ie. those rich and powerful you were referring to). Personally, I think a society in which force is a rare, last resort is the ideal. A society where force is only justified for absolute necessity, such as maintaining order, enforcing contracts, protecting from outside threat, preventing starvation and other severe poverty, etc.
Government should not be regarded as a friend, but as a necessary evil which must be restrained.
Except the government is not granted a monopoly on the use of force within a given geographic area. In its intended form it is the conglomeration of ideas that make up the voter base and any abuse of power can (should) be dealt with in many different ways. Nobody wants a government that wildly swings its club around, as I mentioned above; however, the government in its current form is the result of an extremely apathetic and/or hostile public that misses the target for the decoy. It is not government that people should be directing their hatred towards but rather those who have molded it into its current shape. Somewhere along the way the people have forgotten that the government is, in the end, made up of people subject to the same rules of nature and humanity as the rest of us. What we should be striving for is not a pathetic excuse for a government but an efficient, effective, and fair government. Ill will should be directed towards those in the shadows pulling the strings, getting us to fight amongst ourselves and destroying our country.
Your argument goes too far in saying the government should be a "friend". It's not. The government requires you to give them resources (taxes) and obey rules (laws). In extreme cases, it may require service of you and if necessary, possibly order you to do something that will result in your death. If you refuse to do so, the government reserves the right to take away your freedoms, possibly even imprison you.
It's better put this way: Ultimately, what people want is a government that doesn’t allow them to make bad decisions, rewards merit, makes everyone equal, and favors their social group. But market economies grow prosperous when built in favor of the business class. When governments intervene to shift resources and profits away from entrepreneurial and productive groups and shift it to others (i.e. consumers, bureaucrats, poor rice farmers), then economic development and growth will suffer. A government that takes a long-term view of its citizens’ best interests and invests to make them healthier and educated will do better than one that tries to buy or force prosperity on them.
So we have to find ourselves some degree of allowing the government to create laws and guide policy in a way that takes society's interests in a sustainably long-term manner, generating enough growth to pay for it. I don't think it's wrong for people to say we should be wary of giving the government too much power such that it feels it should take away choices from citizens because bureaucrats know better.
I don't think the notion that government or politics has lost its way is helpful, btw. The game is the same as always, it's about the power to move society. When Obama says new regulations or taxes on the rich will help empower the poor masses make better decisions or when Romney says cutting taxes on businesses will unleash them to generate growth, do you believe them?
Society deems taxes and laws necessary, not government. In fact society deemed government necessary. Government was not created out of a vacuum and neither are laws. Shifting resources and profits away from the filthy rich is not a short-sighted investment, it is the best long-term investment we can make. Trickle-down does not work, and the most prosperous societies are those with the strongest middle-class. It benefits no one but those at the top if there were no taxes. You're right, giving a poor man who has already given up on leading the life he's always wanted aid may not necessarily empower him, but maybe it'll help empower his children and not relegate them to the same lifestyle as their parents. That's what's important.
The game is not the same as always, and you're incredibly blind if you really believe that. Government is being bought off like never before. There has always been some amount of money in politics but what it is at this point of time is disgusting. Instead of blaming everything on government, how about people actually rise up and get all of the money OUT of politics so that our elected officials can cater to the public before having to reach into the pockets of scumbags who care not one bit about our nation nor the people in it?
Well, if it's money in politics that you think is the seminal issue of dirty politics, then America made a gigantic mistake electing Barack Obama, who hauled in money like never before against McCain who only used public funding.
But to be honest, I don't think it's the money that's the problem so much as the outsized influence of lobbyists. These are connected issues but they're not the same. The disease you're speaking of IMO is the credibility we give to experts and the way people are tempted to empower them in ways that open the door to corruption and self-serving. Of course, it is easier since lobbyists can buy their way into the door and convince politicians about their influence. But I don't think the problem will go away even if you get rid of money in politics so long as we have this cultural worship for experts.
Well, I never said Obama or Democrats were free of blame. I am fully aware that both parties are bought off.
Money plays a huge part in lobbying. Expertise only gets you so far currently. Removing as much money as possible from politics won't get rid of all corruption, but it will certainly push us towards the right direction.
The greater power we grant politicians, the greater the likelihood of abuse of power, the greater the corruption. If you reduce the force that government can exercise over society you reduce the incentive to bribe or lobby politicians and therefore you reduce the importance and power of money in politics.
On October 13 2012 15:49 jdseemoreglass wrote: The greater power we grant politicians, the greater the likelihood of abuse of power, the greater the corruption. If you reduce the force that government can exercise over society you reduce the incentive to bribe or lobby politicians and therefore you reduce the importance and power of money in politics.
That's dumb. Instead of trying to roll up government and toss it in the trashcan it would be of more benefit to the vast majority of people if we created an effective and fair government. If you want to reduce the incentive to bribe politicians, reduce the means for people to do so and blame the retards who partake in these highly questionable acts instead of incessantly criticizing the government and making their job even harder. Why the hell should we create a weak, ineffective government when instead we can just give the finger to lobbyists and those who buy elections? It's people who make the government corrupt. Blame those people. Most politicians don't grow up with dreams of screwing people over. They, at one point or another, genuinely cared about the country. But when there's so much money to pander to it's no wonder people stray. We will never fully erase corruption but we can sure as hell be a lot better than we are now. People just need to wake the hell up and realize that there are people trying to oppress the populace and it's not the government, and they're the ones whose power needs curbing.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://m.static.newsvine.com/servista/imagesizer?file=steve-benen9777D716-1BE3-2F15-D79B-085DE4572DAD.jpg&width=600)
![[image loading]](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/images/public-private.png)
