Govt is corrupt, so why do liberals want bigger govt !?!?

[AuSable River]

go back and read the posts -- I am not an anarchist.

in sum, go back and read ALL my posts.

So in reality, you're just starting shit, and have no principled objection to economic intervention. It's okay when the goverment you approve of does it, but it's insidious when liberals want it.

government should act as an impartial referee, not an active player in the game.

our founding fathers very nearly got it right with our constitutional federal republic.

without question civil and political rights have expanded since 1776.

moreover, we have had a strong and stable transistion of power for over 230 years without the violence that plagues most other systems.

hence, liberal democracy in its various forms ---- generally works within the civil and political realm

moreover, our system has been able to protect us from external threats despite intentionally limiting, balancing, decentralizing, and making transparent armed force within our society. essentially, our constitutional system protects us from autocratic threats without denying political and civil freedoms.

however, our founding fathers either didnt address or foresee the ability of statist to gain power by ECONOMIC means. for example, statist abuses have led to damaging survival level threats of waste, corruption, and inefficiency that can lead to societal collapse if not addressed.

hence, we need an economic bill of rights to prevent government from 1) redistributing wealth to cronies in the public and private sector, 2) a balanced budget amendment to protect government from bankrupting society, 3) a declaration of war amendment to prevent govt from engaging in costly foreign conflicts without congressional approval, 4) elimination of fiat money to prevent govt from monetizing debt that destroys society with inflation, 5) transfer all but legal and national defense responsibilities to the states -- hence too big to fail paradigm will be eliminated by decentralizing power to the states. moreover, we will see 50 different experiments from which to draw knowledge and experience to further improve government operations. lastly, government that is closest to the people is most effective.

removing the power from washington to the states will essentially force lobbyists out of washington and into the state capitals. however, if one state fails from corruption (likely) it will not effect other states. moreover, if a state becomes dysfunctional then it is much easier for citizens to leave that state that to leave the USA.
it isnt perfect, but no nation-state is -- ours is not a utopian solution --- it is a work in progress that is significant improvement over the existing system that is in debt up to its eyeballs and corrupt as the eye can see.

[Neo Art]

The problem with philosophies like this is that the world the proponents try to create is a nightmarish hellhole, even if it proceeds EXACTLY as they want it to.

The basic premise behind the argument is this: if a company sets up shop, selling rat poison in a capsule labeled "cancer cure", we don't need government to tell them they can't do that. We don't need government to require them to test the drug to ensure it ACTUALLY treats cancer. We don't need government to make them jump through all these beurocratic hoops. Let them sell their fake cancer cure and if a bunch of people die, well, then that company loses all credibility in the market place, people stop buying its products, they get sued for fraud, and they go bankrupt, thus they exit the market. AND they did it a whole lot cheaper, and with far less waste, then that whole governmental beurocracy.

I disagree with that premise. I disagree that information flows so easily or so clearly, ESPECIALLY if you allow the very company to control the flow of the information, but let's assume, for the moment that the OP is 100% correct. The company is revealed to be a sham, and is removed from the marketplace, completely free of governmental intervention, purely by free market pressures.

And how was such a discovery made? Well, you sell, it was all those people that...you know...died.

So what is the cost of this perfect system? How is the price of this information paid? In blood. In the bodies of those hurt or killed by defective, untested, unsafe, and thoroughly unsound products.

Strip away the fancy talk, the heated rhetoric and the raving and ranting against "statists" and all the OP suggests is legalizing the practice of snake oil salesmen.

Now I know what's coming next, a self fulfilling prophecy by the OP. Since firms KNOW this is the case, KNOW they'll be driven out of business, KNOW they'll lose in the long run, that's enough incentive to be honest from the get go. Not sell fake cancer drugs because, if they did, they know the outcome.

This is, of course, bullshit, for the very reason that it happens anyway. It already occurs, even under the scheme of governmental regulation.

The term "snake oil salesman" doesn't come out of a vaccuum, after all.

[Mosasauria]

The problem with philosophies like this is that the world the proponents try to create is a nightmarish hellhole, even if it proceeds EXACTLY as they want it to.

The basic premise behind the argument is this: if a company sets up shop, selling rat poison in a capsule labeled "cancer cure", we don't need government to tell them they can't do that. We don't need government to require them to test the drug to ensure it ACTUALLY treats cancer. We don't need government to make them jump through all these beurocratic hoops. Let them sell their fake cancer cure and if a bunch of people die, well, then that company loses all credibility in the market place, people stop buying its products, they get sued for fraud, and they go bankrupt, thus they exit the market. AND they did it a whole lot cheaper, and with far less waste, then that whole governmental beurocracy.

I disagree with that premise. I disagree that information flows so easily or so clearly, ESPECIALLY if you allow the very company to control the flow of the information, but let's assume, for the moment that the OP is 100% correct. The company is revealed to be a sham, and is removed from the marketplace, completely free of governmental intervention, purely by free market pressures.

And how was such a discovery made? Well, you sell, it was all those people that...you know...died.

So what is the cost of this perfect system? How is the price of this information paid? In blood. In the bodies of those hurt or killed by defective, untested, unsafe, and thoroughly unsound products.

Strip away the fancy talk, the heated rhetoric and the raving and ranting against "statists" and all the OP suggests is legalizing the practice of snake oil salesmen.

Now I know what's coming next, a self fulfilling prophecy by the OP. Since firms KNOW this is the case, KNOW they'll be driven out of business, KNOW they'll lose in the long run, that's enough incentive to be honest from the get go. Not sell fake cancer drugs because, if they did, they know the outcome.

This is, of course, bullshit, for the very reason that it happens anyway. It already occurs, even under the scheme of governmental regulation.

The term "snake oil salesman" doesn't come out of a vaccuum, after all.

Hmmm... I didn't think of that.

[AuSable River]

Consumers have neither the time, resources, nor information to make rational choices about the vast majority of things they consume. trots

and government bureaucrats and politicians who are using other people's money can do this with more due diligence and more effectively ??!!!

And firms have every incentive to ensure that they do not. When there are external costs to a transaction (which is nigh universal), market discipline can't do anything.--trots

I dont understand your statement, but if it means that firms dont have to satisfy consumer preferences then it is manifestly wrong.

firms that dont satisfy consumer preferences will fail. end of story.

try opening a business and screwing the customer and see how far and how big you get.

the only enterprise that can screw the customer and stay in business -- indeed get bigger --- is government

This is no different than if a firm has been found to have criminal breached health or safety regulations.-- trots

yeah, and today in our present system -- corrupt firms and special interest have bought the polticians. or rather the politicians have opened themselves to bids for favors in the form of preferential tax and regulatory treatment and protections from competition.


essentially, the very monopolies you fear is what government becomes ??!!

[AuSable River]

The basic premise behind the argument is this: if a company sets up shop, selling rat poison in a capsule labeled "cancer cure", we don't need government to tell them they can't do that. We don't need government to require them to test the drug to ensure it ACTUALLY treats cancer. We don't need government to make them jump through all these beurocratic hoops.--neo art

I got news for you dude. the only rat poison salesman is the FDA

the highest cause of accidental death in the USA is from prescription drugs approved by the FDA (with healthy bribes from these very same pharma companies).

Indeed, more Americans die from prescription drugs than from heroin, marijuana, and cocaine combined !!!!!

essentially, private sector unregulated drug dealers are selling billions of dollars worth of illicit drugs and killing less Americans than those peddled by the FDA.

ponder that and reexamine the fallacious framework of your argument.

[Trotskylvania]

government should act as an impartial referee, not an active player in the game.

Hence why our government issues impartial health, safety and conduct regulations, and rarely enters into direct contact. The state manages the affairs of the whole ruling class, it doesn't pick winners and losers from them. That's a good way to lose an election

moreover, we have had a strong and stable transistion of power for over 230 years without the violence that plagues most other systems.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yes, only if you forget the violence of slavery, Bleeding Kansas, the John Brown raid, Nat Turner's slave rebellion, the Civil War, the frontier labor wars, the numerous massacres of unionists, street battles between political gangs in the inner cities, the violent suppression of the labor movement in the First World War, the intercine conflict between fascists and their opponents leading up to the Second World War, the massive violence of the race riots, the Civil Rights era, the Stonewall riots for gay rights, etc., etc.

moreover, our system has been able to protect us from external threats despite intentionally limiting, balancing, decentralizing, and making transparent armed force within our society. essentially, our constitutional system protects us from autocratic threats without denying political and civil freedoms.

Except it didn't, and never has until about the last thirty years.

however, our founding fathers either didnt address or foresee the ability of statist to gain power by ECONOMIC means. for example, statist abuses have led to damaging survival level threats of waste, corruption, and inefficiency that can lead to societal collapse if not addressed.

hence, we need an economic bill of rights to prevent government from 1) redistributing wealth to cronies in the public and private sector, 2) a balanced budget amendment to protect government from bankrupting society, 3) a declaration of war amendment to prevent govt from engaging in costly foreign conflicts without congressional approval, 4) elimination of fiat money to prevent govt from monetizing debt that destroys society with inflation, 5) transfer all but legal and national defense responsibilities to the states -- hence too big to fail paradigm will be eliminated by decentralizing power to the states. moreover, we will see 50 different experiments from which to draw knowledge and experience to further improve government operations. lastly, government that is closest to the people is most effective.

Except you can't, because all actions of government represent some form of wealth transfer, whether it's establishing property rights, or contracts for defense spending.

Balanced budgets are a terrible idea. They lead to deflation, which has no positive economic function. The same goes for gold standard/hard currecncy: it's deflationary and dangerously unstable, unlike fiat money which eases economic transactions.

The federal govermet was given the power to regulate interstate commerce for a reason. It's because states do not have the means to deal with large scale trade without destablizing trade among the states. The federal government is the only entity that fairly regulate commerce that is between or among the several states. Others would simply protect parochial interests, which would be utterly harmful.

[AuSable River]

The problem with philosophies like this is that the world the proponents try to create is a nightmarish hellhole, even if it proceeds EXACTLY as they want it to.

The basic premise behind the argument is this: if a company sets up shop, selling rat poison in a capsule labeled "cancer cure", we don't need government to tell them they can't do that. We don't need government to require them to test the drug to ensure it ACTUALLY treats cancer. We don't need government to make them jump through all these beurocratic hoops. Let them sell their fake cancer cure and if a bunch of people die, well, then that company loses all credibility in the market place, people stop buying its products, they get sued for fraud, and they go bankrupt, thus they exit the market. AND they did it a whole lot cheaper, and with far less waste, then that whole governmental beurocracy.

I disagree with that premise. I disagree that information flows so easily or so clearly, ESPECIALLY if you allow the very company to control the flow of the information, but let's assume, for the moment that the OP is 100% correct. The company is revealed to be a sham, and is removed from the marketplace, completely free of governmental intervention, purely by free market pressures.

And how was such a discovery made? Well, you sell, it was all those people that...you know...died.

So what is the cost of this perfect system? How is the price of this information paid? In blood. In the bodies of those hurt or killed by defective, untested, unsafe, and thoroughly unsound products.

Strip away the fancy talk, the heated rhetoric and the raving and ranting against "statists" and all the OP suggests is legalizing the practice of snake oil salesmen.

Now I know what's coming next, a self fulfilling prophecy by the OP. Since firms KNOW this is the case, KNOW they'll be driven out of business, KNOW they'll lose in the long run, that's enough incentive to be honest from the get go. Not sell fake cancer drugs because, if they did, they know the outcome.

This is, of course, bullshit, for the very reason that it happens anyway. It already occurs, even under the scheme of governmental regulation.

The term "snake oil salesman" doesn't come out of a vaccuum, after all.

so much for your private sector snake oil fallacy:

http://www.naturalnews.com/035641_corru ... harma.html

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... miflu.aspx

http://greenhouseneutralfoundation.org/ ... in-danger/

http://dangerousintersection.org/2009/0 ... t-the-fda/

http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/ama.htm

in sum, statist are under the delusion that government is trusted and serves them ---- nothing could be further from the truth.

indeed, my goal is to inform the servile that pray on the altar of government power -- that this is a false god.

individual rights and individual responsibility in a free, voluntary, and competitive societal framework is far more preferable and beneficial to societal health and well being.

good night, my shift is over.

[Neo Art]

Hmmm... I didn't think of that.

I'd say he didn't either, but I know that's untrue. I'd like to think that this thought just escaped him, and now presented with it, there will be some revelation. But there won't be. The truth is, they have thought of it, all the proponents have. The reason they're still proponents is either because:

1) They don't care. It's cheaper. That's all that matters. It costs less money. More pain and suffering sure, but they don't care about that. This is the kind that simply cares about economic value. For them, an economy is an ends to itself, not a means to an end. It's cheaper, that's all that matters. Human suffering be damned.

2) They don't believe it. TO them, you can tell them the implications, explain the drawbacks, elaborate on EXACTLY what will happen, but to them..it won't. It just won't. It just won't. Why not? Fuck you, that's why not. To them, their perfect little utopia is perfect, and any flaws in it won't happen, because if it did happen, those would be flaws, and their system is perfect, so it can't have flaws. Because it's perfect. Never mind the fact that what we say will happen is exactly what would happen.

See, I ascribe to a theory of institutionalism as a political philosophy. This basically, at a root level, states that our institutions exist for a reason. They all didn't exist, before they did, and they were created to fulfil some need perceived by society. We didn't have this form of governmental regulation in commerce, until we did. We made that happen. It wasn't delivered upon us by aliens, and folks like the OP are trying to free us from the shackels of our extra terrestrial overlords. We (or our forefathers) created these systems, for a reason. Why do these regulations exist? Because they determined that a regulatory scheme was better than not having one, because the harm of not having one weighed more than the harms by creating them. Thus to advocate any change in the system one must demonstrate:
- The balance has changed, or;
- The harm the system sought to prevent is no longer relevant, or;
- Society has changed such that the underlying harm the system sought to prevent is less than the harm wrought by the
system

What the OP advocates (well no, that's not fair, the OP doesn't advocate anything, I'm firmly, utterly convinced he doesn't believe a single word of this, but people who ACTUALLY advocate what a trollish OP proports to advocate) is thus not progression, it's regression. It's stripping us of systems we already determined were useful. They say that if we strip these systems, then the fears I articulate won't happen. Except they did happen. Which is exactly why we created them in the first place. And all we get in exchange is "it just won't happen, because it won't happen, because it won't, because the system is perfect, and can't have flaws, because it's perfect".

Ontological inertia exists for a reason. The systems we have are here for a reason. Don't tell me things won't happen, if the very fact that they DID happen is the reason we created the system in the first place

[Jimanistan]

essentially, private sector unregulated drug dealers are selling billions of dollars worth of illicit drugs and killing less Americans than those peddled by the FDA.

Did it occur to you that prescription drugs are probably used by a great deal more people than the illegal sort of drugs? Not to mention more often by those people? And that a great many people intentionally misuse prescription drugs? It's really all very shocking.

By the way, you only really need one exclamation point per sentence. More than three comes off as a bit obnoxious. Or is good grammar a Statist attempt to curtail your liberty?

[Mosasauria]

The problem with philosophies like this is that the world the proponents try to create is a nightmarish hellhole, even if it proceeds EXACTLY as they want it to.

The basic premise behind the argument is this: if a company sets up shop, selling rat poison in a capsule labeled "cancer cure", we don't need government to tell them they can't do that. We don't need government to require them to test the drug to ensure it ACTUALLY treats cancer. We don't need government to make them jump through all these beurocratic hoops. Let them sell their fake cancer cure and if a bunch of people die, well, then that company loses all credibility in the market place, people stop buying its products, they get sued for fraud, and they go bankrupt, thus they exit the market. AND they did it a whole lot cheaper, and with far less waste, then that whole governmental beurocracy.

I disagree with that premise. I disagree that information flows so easily or so clearly, ESPECIALLY if you allow the very company to control the flow of the information, but let's assume, for the moment that the OP is 100% correct. The company is revealed to be a sham, and is removed from the marketplace, completely free of governmental intervention, purely by free market pressures.

And how was such a discovery made? Well, you sell, it was all those people that...you know...died.

So what is the cost of this perfect system? How is the price of this information paid? In blood. In the bodies of those hurt or killed by defective, untested, unsafe, and thoroughly unsound products.

Strip away the fancy talk, the heated rhetoric and the raving and ranting against "statists" and all the OP suggests is legalizing the practice of snake oil salesmen.

Now I know what's coming next, a self fulfilling prophecy by the OP. Since firms KNOW this is the case, KNOW they'll be driven out of business, KNOW they'll lose in the long run, that's enough incentive to be honest from the get go. Not sell fake cancer drugs because, if they did, they know the outcome.

This is, of course, bullshit, for the very reason that it happens anyway. It already occurs, even under the scheme of governmental regulation.

The term "snake oil salesman" doesn't come out of a vaccuum, after all.

so much for your private sector snake oil fallacy:

http://www.naturalnews.com/035641_corru ... harma.html

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... miflu.aspx

http://greenhouseneutralfoundation.org/ ... in-danger/

http://dangerousintersection.org/2009/0 ... t-the-fda/

http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/ama.htm

in sum, statist are under the delusion that government is trusted and serves them ---- nothing could be further from the truth.

indeed, my goal is to inform the servile that pray on the altar of government power -- that this is a false god.

individual rights and individual responsibility in a free, voluntary, and competitive societal framework is far more preferable and beneficial to societal health and well being.

good night, my shift is over.

One of my problems with this is that the very thing that corrupts the government is the very thing you trust more than the government.

[Trotskylvania]

and government bureaucrats and politicians who are using other people's money can do this with more due diligence and more effectively ??!!!

Yes. They have access to the resources, the training, and most importantly, the time. It is, after all, their job, to do this. Bureaucrats have to answer to the political leaders of government, who are concerned about votes, ad reducing corruption.

I dont understand your statement, but if it means that firms dont have to satisfy consumer preferences then it is manifestly wrong.

And in spite of the problems, and the lives that were lost, Ford still saved money by allowing people to die than recalling the Pinto.

Furthermore, you misunderstand my point. I was talking about exteralities.

firms that dont satisfy consumer preferences will fail. end of story.

try opening a business and screwing the customer and see how far and how big you get.

You miss the point. All the market discipline in the world won't stop passing external costs off to people other than those engaged in the transaction. For example, pollution. You get cheap electricity, but people are dying of cancer, black lung and losing their livelihoods due to the pollution from burning coal.

[Magmia]

Who knows?

Probably they are just following the indoctrination that they have received from leftwing educators, pop culture, and the main stream media who are all proponents of big government.

If I could deprogram leftists, I would enlighten them to the fact that government is a market for corruption.

Essentially, it is a place where special interests go to get something by coercive means that they couldn't get in a free, voluntary, and competitive society.

For example, the reckless and irresponsible financial institutions that engaged in questionable business practices prior to the 2008 crisis successfully went to Washington to get bailed out by Bush, RINO republicans and virtually every democrat in Congress (including obama).

Not surprisingly, these same banks contributed generously to both obama and bush in their respective elections. Moreover, the these same failed bankers have figured prominently in both the bush and obama cabinets.

Using the 'logic' of the Left -- obama, bush, and democrats in congress were required to divert scarce resources from productive sectors of the economy to bailout the very negligent and reckless firms and individuals who helped cause the crisis or in the very least were clueless on how to mitigate its impact.

They don't really know why --just that the same fools and crooks who caused the crisis must be bailed out AND the politicians and elites in finance told them that a bail out was necessary ??!! How 'surprising' and convenient for these same elitist politicians and bankers.

In reality, the purpose of government isn't to promote sustainable and beneficial economic policy -- it is for self-serving politicians and their corrupt cronies in the public and private sector to 'game' the system to their benefit at the expense of productive individuals and firms in the private sector (who by definition don't need government help).

This is the preamble of ECO 101 for progressives.

In sum, if any liberal/progressive/leftist thinks that government is not corrupt and coercive -- then you cant proceed further and we need to resolve this impasse.

Please ask questions.

1. That isn't just the left, that's the general public. Clearly, the right perpetuates the same bullshit of their ideology, as is evident in your OP.
2. "Deprogram?" Nice...
3. Rhetorical bullshit lacking substence
4 and 5. No shit Sherlock
6. "Logic of the left?" Obama had no power beyond the powers given to him as a Senator by the Constitution. He is not some dictator making every decision. And sure, it was only the Democrats, just them, nobody else...
8. The problem is not government, the problem is the people we put in government
9. What. The. Hell are you talking about?!?!

Clearly, you have bought into the nonsense of the right, while accusing the left of buying into nonsense. You are the very thing you're criticizing except on the other side of the spectrum

[Mosasauria]

Who knows?

Probably they are just following the indoctrination that they have received from leftwing educators, pop culture, and the main stream media who are all proponents of big government.

If I could deprogram leftists, I would enlighten them to the fact that government is a market for corruption.

Essentially, it is a place where special interests go to get something by coercive means that they couldn't get in a free, voluntary, and competitive society.

For example, the reckless and irresponsible financial institutions that engaged in questionable business practices prior to the 2008 crisis successfully went to Washington to get bailed out by Bush, RINO republicans and virtually every democrat in Congress (including obama).

Not surprisingly, these same banks contributed generously to both obama and bush in their respective elections. Moreover, the these same failed bankers have figured prominently in both the bush and obama cabinets.

Using the 'logic' of the Left -- obama, bush, and democrats in congress were required to divert scarce resources from productive sectors of the economy to bailout the very negligent and reckless firms and individuals who helped cause the crisis or in the very least were clueless on how to mitigate its impact.

They don't really know why --just that the same fools and crooks who caused the crisis must be bailed out AND the politicians and elites in finance told them that a bail out was necessary ??!! How 'surprising' and convenient for these same elitist politicians and bankers.

In reality, the purpose of government isn't to promote sustainable and beneficial economic policy -- it is for self-serving politicians and their corrupt cronies in the public and private sector to 'game' the system to their benefit at the expense of productive individuals and firms in the private sector (who by definition don't need government help).

This is the preamble of ECO 101 for progressives.

In sum, if any liberal/progressive/leftist thinks that government is not corrupt and coercive -- then you cant proceed further and we need to resolve this impasse.

Please ask questions.

1. That isn't just the left, that's the general public. Clearly, the right perpetuates the same bullshit of their ideology, as is evident in your OP.
2. "Deprogram?" Nice...
3. Rhetorical bullshit lacking substence
4 and 5. No shit Sherlock
6. "Logic of the left?" Obama had no power beyond the powers given to him as a Senator by the Constitution. He is not some dictator making every decision. And sure, it was only the Democrats, just them, nobody else...
8. The problem is not government, the problem is the people we put in government
9. What. The. Hell are you talking about?!?!

Clearly, you have bought into the nonsense of the right, while accusing the left of buying into nonsense. You are the very thing you're criticizing except on the other side of the spectrum

If you think his OP is bad, you should look above your post.

[Magmia]

try opening a business and screwing the customer and see how far and how big you get.

Businesses get away with that shit every day!!!!!

And people still go, because they don't know any better, or they don't give a shit!

[Galiantus]

government should act as an impartial referee, not an active player in the game.

Hence why our government issues impartial health, safety and conduct regulations, and rarely enters into direct contact. The state manages the affairs of the whole ruling class, it doesn't pick winners and losers from them. That's a good way to lose an election

Two letters: G. E.

moreover, we have had a strong and stable transistion of power for over 230 years without the violence that plagues most other systems.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yes, only if you forget the violence of slavery, Bleeding Kansas, the John Brown raid, Nat Turner's slave rebellion, the Civil War, the frontier labor wars, the numerous massacres of unionists, street battles between political gangs in the inner cities, the violent suppression of the labor movement in the First World War, the intercine conflict between fascists and their opponents leading up to the Second World War, the massive violence of the race riots, the Civil Rights era, the Stonewall riots for gay rights, etc., etc.

It is absurd to think a country could go for 230 years without some disputes, riots, a few wars, and maybe a civil war. However, compared to the rest of the world, the United States has had the most stable government, and has not faced any revolutions as of yet (although I guess you could argue that the civil war could qualify as one). Let's also look at the technological advancements the USA has accomplished in 230 years. Going from muskets, cannons, and horse and buggy to assault rifles, atom bomb, and man on the moon is pretty impressive, not to mention the myriad of other inventions created shortly after the USA separated from Great Britain.

moreover, our system has been able to protect us from external threats despite intentionally limiting, balancing, decentralizing, and making transparent armed force within our society. essentially, our constitutional system protects us from autocratic threats without denying political and civil freedoms.

Except it didn't, and never has until about the last thirty years.

Proof? America is one of the safest nations in the world, if not the safest, and has been almost since its founding.

however, our founding fathers either didnt address or foresee the ability of statist to gain power by ECONOMIC means. for example, statist abuses have led to damaging survival level threats of waste, corruption, and inefficiency that can lead to societal collapse if not addressed.

hence, we need an economic bill of rights to prevent government from 1) redistributing wealth to cronies in the public and private sector, 2) a balanced budget amendment to protect government from bankrupting society, 3) a declaration of war amendment to prevent govt from engaging in costly foreign conflicts without congressional approval, 4) elimination of fiat money to prevent govt from monetizing debt that destroys society with inflation, 5) transfer all but legal and national defense responsibilities to the states -- hence too big to fail paradigm will be eliminated by decentralizing power to the states. moreover, we will see 50 different experiments from which to draw knowledge and experience to further improve government operations. lastly, government that is closest to the people is most effective.

Except you can't, because all actions of government represent some form of wealth transfer, whether it's establishing property rights, or contracts for defense spending.

Balanced budgets are a terrible idea. They lead to deflation, which has no positive economic function. The same goes for gold standard/hard currecncy: it's deflationary and dangerously unstable, unlike fiat money which eases economic transactions.

Try telling that to Germany after the first World War. When money is worth more as fire tinder than currency, there is a problem.

[Confederate Socialist States of America]

Liberals are still delusional enough to believe the system can be fixed. They're desperately denying the reality that the system is irreparably broken and must be replaced, not left to limp on... Doing more harm than good because they've become corrupt down to the very marrow, but are still recognized as legitimate.

Take the EPA for the example. Liberals demand that the EPA's power be expanded, even though the EPA has been rated the most corrupt agencies in the country. Expanding an agency's power doesn't help when it's controlled by the same people they're supposed to keeping a lease over.

[Neo Art]

http://www.naturalnews.com/035641_corru ... harma.html

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... miflu.aspx

http://greenhouseneutralfoundation.org/ ... in-danger/

http://dangerousintersection.org/2009/0 ... t-the-fda/

http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/ama.htm

Assuming the validity of your...extraordinarily dubious sources, but giving you the benefit of the doubt, you're remarkably proving my point. Of course our current system is flawed. Everybody knows it's flawed. There isn't a person with enough intelligence to breath who doesn't know it's flawed. If you're insisting on attacking the mythical people who think the government is perfect and does no wrong, you're not just tilting and windmills, you're tilting at their shadows.

All you have done here is show that there exists a segment of the regulated industries who will try to circumvent the regulatory process. In other words, you've just remarkably well demonstrated that these companies are already doing exactly what I said they would do. Your "solution" to that problem is get rid of the only institution that's holding back the rest. Yes, a certain element of corruption exists, and will continue to exist. Our goal should be to get rid of that corruption, not remove the only thing keeping them honest.

If your sole argument, if your whole point was "this corruption and malfeasance is going to exist anyway, let's at least eliminate the middle man and save a few bucks" I'd argue that the two realities aren't equal, but at least we'd have a point.

Instead yours seems to be "people are corrupt, so let's make it worse".

in sum, statist are under the delusion that government is trusted and serves them ---- nothing could be further from the truth.

Again, literally NOBODY is making the argument that the government should be implicitly trusted. Nobody. Not one single person.

Take your horse elsewhere Don Quixote, there's no dragons here.

indeed, my goal is to inform the servile that pray on the altar of government power -- that this is a false god.

And yet, for some reason, you seem to insist that instead of trusting a corrupt government, we should instead trust those very institutions that by your own citations are actively trying to corrupt the government.

I don't implicitly trust the government. Yet I trust a government official who is subject to re-election every 2-6 years a whole lot more than a corporate officer whose sole interest is getting as much of my money, as quickly as possible.

The government, at least on some level, answers to me, keeping me safe is, to an extent, part of its vested self interest. Yes, corruption happens, but when we find that out we can fire them.

On the other hand, things such as my happiness, my safety, my health, my life, are only relevant to a business when me having them is more profitable than me not having them. And the minute, the minute the accountants figure out that, when you factor in sales versus litigation, that putting poison in the well and calling in chemotherapy makes them one red cent than NOT doing that, then that's exactly what they're going to do, no matter how many people it kills.

And how do I know that? Because by your own admission that's exactly what some of them are trying already.

Somehow I'm supposed to trust pure profit motive MORE than someone I can, at least in theory, fire if they stop acting on my behalf?

What a steaming pile of horse shit.

good night, my shift is over.

quelle fucking surprise

[Neo Art]

and government bureaucrats and politicians who are using other people's money can do this with more due diligence and more effectively ??!!!

Of course they do. That is, after all, their job to do exactly that, and they have the resources of governmental agencies who sole function is to gather that kind of information for them.

They thus can do this with extraordinarily more efficiency than I can, in my own free time, after I have to do my own actual job.

What a nonsensical question this is.

try opening a business and screwing the customer and see how far and how big you get

you know, this line of BS comes up so often, that I can literally trot out a post I made two years ago on the subject, and have it be entirely relevant:

Which is why that after basically theft, witness intimidation, bribery, corruption, and coercing false testimony that almost certainly lead to the execution of an innocent man in Nigeria, Shell Oil is completely out of business

....fuck.

[The UK in Exile]

Liberals are still delusional enough to believe the system can be fixed. They're desperately denying the reality that the system is irreparably broken and must be replaced, not left to limp on... Doing more harm than good because they've become corrupt down to the very marrow, but are still recognized as legitimate.

Take the EPA for the example. Liberals demand that the EPA's power be expanded, even though the EPA has been rated the most corrupt agencies in the country. Expanding an agency's power doesn't help when it's controlled by the same people they're supposed to keeping a lease over.

what where the next four most corrupt? in order.

[Miss Defied]

Liberals are still delusional enough to believe the system can be fixed. They're desperately denying the reality that the system is irreparably broken and must be replaced, not left to limp on... Doing more harm than good because they've become corrupt down to the very marrow, but are still recognized as legitimate.

Take the EPA for the example. Liberals demand that the EPA's power be expanded, even though the EPA has been rated the most corrupt agencies in the country.

Rated by whom? I would love to see this list.

Expanding an agency's power doesn't help when it's controlled by the same people they're supposed to keeping a lease over.

Well you could say that about lots of government agencies. So do you propose they be staffed by imbeciles who have no expertise in the areas they should be regulating or do we just throw out all the rules that protect the populace from adverse effects of companies doing business with no regard to the consequences of their actions?

[Mosasauria]

Liberals are still delusional enough to believe the system can be fixed. They're desperately denying the reality that the system is irreparably broken and must be replaced, not left to limp on... Doing more harm than good because they've become corrupt down to the very marrow, but are still recognized as legitimate.

Take the EPA for the example. Liberals demand that the EPA's power be expanded, even though the EPA has been rated the most corrupt agencies in the country. Expanding an agency's power doesn't help when it's controlled by the same people they're supposed to keeping a lease over.

Please, do tell me how the EPA is a hyper-corrupt agency.

[Holy Trek]

Probably they are just following the indoctrination that they have received from leftwing educators, pop culture, and the main stream media who are all proponents of big government.

Ok..first, do you realize how idiotic that sounded? You make it sound as though us liberals actually want bigger government. Have you even interviewed any liberals to get their own personal views, or do you just lump all liberals into this category of wanting bigger government?

If I could deprogram leftists, I would enlighten them to the fact that government is a market for corruption.

What are we now, robots?? 'Deprogram'.....sounds like a fascist tactic to me.

Not surprisingly, these same banks contributed generously to both obama and bush in their respective elections. Moreover, the these same failed bankers have figured prominently in both the bush and obama cabinets.

Got anything to back this statement up, or are you just blowing hot air?

In reality, the purpose of government isn't to promote sustainable and beneficial economic policy -- it is for self-serving politicians and their corrupt cronies in the public and private sector to 'game' the system to their benefit at the expense of productive individuals and firms in the private sector (who by definition don't need government help).

WOW!! What a damn genius you just proved to be.....I guess there must be readers here who have been living under rocks for so long they lost track of the times.

[Miss Defied]

I got news for you dude. the only rat poison salesman is the FDA

the highest cause of accidental death in the USA is from prescription drugs approved by the FDA (with healthy bribes from these very same pharma companies).

Oh, do you mean this? (It's a .pdf)

I hardly think it is the FDA's fault that so many people are abusing prescription opioids and overdosing. And the fact that it has surpassed auto accidents as the most accidental cause of death actually says a lot more about how drastically auto accident deaths have declined if you look at the chart by the CDC.
By the way, didn't one of your posts rail about the abysmal number of traffic deaths as a reason why government is corrupt or something? You might want to re-think that.

But aside from that, these deaths are occuring despite the regulatory powers of the FDA, not because of them. Funny though, you would think with all these bad drugs on the market that the consumers would be boycotting and "holding back" these irresponsible companies.
But they aren't. What will make consumers "hold back" these businesses when you just take away the FDA in your fantasy world?

And you also think that all we have to do is abolish FDA regulations and all of a sudden big pharma will stop rushing unsafe, untested drugs to the market? How will that happen exactly?

[Souseiseki]

the highest cause of accidental death in the USA is from prescription drugs approved by the FDA (with healthy bribes from these very same pharma companies).

Indeed, more Americans die from prescription drugs than from heroin, marijuana, and cocaine combined !!!!!

essentially, private sector unregulated drug dealers are selling billions of dollars worth of illicit drugs and killing less Americans than those peddled by the FDA.

ponder that and reexamine the fallacious framework of your argument.

There are so many blatant problems with this snippet I don't even know where to begin but I assume it'd be a good start to tell you to provide the numbers and sources. I have a horrible feeling you're using two horrible incomparable data sets. A horrible horrible feeling that the phrase "per x" never arose once in your sources. And that's just the start.

[Souseiseki]

Liberals are still delusional enough to believe the system can be fixed. They're desperately denying the reality that the system is irreparably broken and must be replaced, not left to limp on... Doing more harm than good because they've become corrupt down to the very marrow, but are still recognized as legitimate.

Take the EPA for the example. Liberals demand that the EPA's power be expanded, even though the EPA has been rated the most corrupt agencies in the country. Expanding an agency's power doesn't help when it's controlled by the same people they're supposed to keeping a lease over.

the best part is that this post, especially the first part, could be attributed to a maoist or an american republican. so, uh, it's 7AM, help me out here man.