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

[Mavorpen]

Everybody deserves wealth earned through hard work or inherited from the hard work of their parents or other ancestors.
But everybody also deserves, as explicitly said by all mayor human rights' treaties in the world, several basic goods and services such as education, healthcare, food, housing and a dignified job.

And the two are hardly mutually exclussive.

Good starting points.
How do the downtrodden get a proper education?
Shall we force teachers to teach for less wages and send them to the world's hellholes?
How shall the downtrodden get proper medical care?
Shall we enslave doctors and send them to the impoverished nations?
How shall we give everyone a proper diet?
Shall we enslave farmers?
How shall we give everyone a proper home?
Shall we enslave carpenters or take peoples money to give to habitat for humanity?
How do we give everyone a dignified job?
What is a dignified job? What if no one needs someone to do a dignified job for them?

I love how your answers would only be said by conservatives.

[Liriena]

Everybody deserves wealth earned through hard work or inherited from the hard work of their parents or other ancestors.
But everybody also deserves, as explicitly said by all mayor human rights' treaties in the world, several basic goods and services such as education, healthcare, food, housing and a dignified job.

And the two are hardly mutually exclussive.

Good starting points.
a) How do the downtrodden get a proper education?
Shall we force teachers to teach for less wages and send them to the world's hellholes?
b) How shall the downtrodden get proper medical care?
Shall we enslave doctors and send them to the impoverished nations?
c) How shall we give everyone a proper diet?
Shall we enslave farmers?
d) How shall we give everyone a proper home?
Shall we enslave carpenters or take peoples money to give to habitat for humanity?
e) How do we give everyone a dignified job?
What is a dignified job? What if no one needs someone to do a dignified job for them?

a) Free public education for everyone, funded by the state. Teachers get payed by the state the average wage in the private market or more. In the case of poor countries, tighly regulated foreign aid should fund that same public education.
b) Read (a). Change education for healthcare. Doctors get payed by the state the average wage in the private market or more.
c) Read (a). Change public education for food. Food is bought from private producers by the state, then cooked by state workers in state-owned venues and provided to the poor, no questions asked.
d) The state hires construction workers and architects, pays them the average wages they get in the private market or more. State buys the materials for construction. The homeless get the homes that are built, and start paying for them as soon as they get a job.
e) The state can make arrangements with private companies for the latter to hire workers in exchange for certain benefits...or the state can hire some unemployed to work for the state.

All of it, payed for through the taxes of all citizens, who are all entitled to the use of said services. If they don't want to use those services, they can go to the private market, but they still have their duty, as citizens, to pay their taxes to the state to, therefor, ensure the welfare of the nation as a whole.

When you decide to live in society, you are accepting to submitt to certain basic rules. You are accepting the state's authority over you to ensure your lifelong welfare and security.

Basic Thomas Hobbes.

[Beiluxia]

Can someone up-to-date me on this thread? I haven't paid any attention to it since page 16 or something.

[Priory Academy USSR]

Can someone up-to-date me on this thread? I haven't paid any attention to it since page 16 or something.

Not much has changed, really.

[Liriena]

Can someone up-to-date me on this thread? I haven't paid any attention to it since page 16 or something.

Same old: OP being an arrogant prick and spewing fallacious, cynical and baseless bullshit with every breath, and totally ignoring other people's actual arguments and evidence.

[Beiluxia]

I'm actually surprised people have kept this thread up so long. I would have thought either the OP would've gone on a rage serious enough to be locked, or for everyone else to just leave the thread and the OP's bubble alone.

[Liriena]

I'm actually surprised people have kept this thread up so long. I would have thought either the OP would've gone on a rage serious enough to be locked, or for everyone else to just leave the thread and the OP's bubble alone.

Right now we are seriously considering the latter.

[AuSable River]

just like the government will manage health care and reduce costs.

or initiate a war on poverty and today after trillions of dollars spent --- we have record number of people living in poverty.

Yeah, Republicans don't care about poor people. What's your point?

yet if the government or some leftwing front group tells mavoren something ---- he will always believe.

he cant explain why in his own words -- he just parrots there propaganda like a good little liberal.

So you can't refute my sources. Mm'kay. I've won.

]

mavoren do you realize that the many of your posts, when they are not simply trollish retorts, actually support my assertions?

hence, do you even understand the substance of the debate?

for example, I stated in a previous post that the US government that has been the most heavily involved institution in health care since the creation of medicare in the 1960s has failed utterly to control costs, and your 'rebut' is ...........................

........................wait for it...................................wait for it.............................................its

coming......................... the graph above that shows US spending on health care per person is greater than any other nation?!!?!


Indeed, prior to government becoming heavily involved in health care costs were 5% of GDP with pretty good outcomes ------ now 50 years later medicare-medicaid and the like are survival level threats to the republic with health care costs consuming 25% of GDP and Washington and obama are not talking about improving outcomes, they are constantly talking about costs !??!!

essentially government has thrown trillions into health care without any significant improvement in outcomes.

same story for education, national defense, envirnoment, poverty, et al.

what the idealistic humanitarian statist drones fail to understand is that government is using these 'wars on poverty' 'wars on illiteracy', 'wars on health care' as an excuse to control tremendous sums of wealth to gain and maintain power, wealth, and privledge for themselves and their well connected lobbyist cronies.

and well-intentioned dupes like yourself and others on this thread are serving as useful unpaid pawns in this scheme while health care costs rise--- quality care declines, spending on poverty rises--- poverty skyrockets, unemployment insurance expands --- unemployment rises, professor pay expands ---- education costs skyrocket, et al......


wake-up folks, the federal government is not your friend -- it is organized crime and it has bought you off very cheaply with 'hope and change' rhetoric and a few measly handouts that will do nothing to improve your life and living standards.

and no, without a behemoth federal government ,bill gates isnt going to take over the world --- government still has an essential role in protecting property, providing legal services, and balancing political power in Washington.

[AuSable River]

Can someone up-to-date me on this thread? I haven't paid any attention to it since page 16 or something.

Not a single post or argument that has debunked the self-evident truth that I posted at the start of this thread that the federal government gains enormous tax and regulatory power over trillions of dollars under the guise of 'wars on poverty' , 'wars on illiteracy' , a 'wars on health care', et al in order to use this power to pad their own pockets and those of their politically well connected cronies in the public and private sector.

as government spending on health care has expanded in earnest since the 1960s ---- costs have skyrocketed and outcomes flatlined.

as government spending on education has expanded ---- costs have skyrocketed and outcomes have flatlined.

as government spending on poverty has expanded --- poverty has increased to near record levels.

since the FED was created in 1913 to strengthen the dollar, moderate economic downturns, and protect banks ----- the dollar has declined to 4% of its original value, we have had numerous serious recessions including the one we are currently muddling through and the Great Depression, and tens of thousands of banks have failed or have required trillions in tax payer wealth to bailout.

since the SEC was created ---- rogues like crony capitalists bernie maddof continue to prop up every year always one or two steps ahead of the unintended consequences of any static regulation that government tries to impose that only serve to punish the honest and hard-working capitalist actors in society

the list goes on and on.

essentially government benefits from crisis, so it is in its interest to perpetuate these so they can continue to justify more tax and regulatory power for themselves and their cronies.

Indeed, it is rational for those who are in the system to promote this scheme since they benefit directly. Let me outline the simple dynamic at play so the leftists can understand:

1) due to scarce resources, not everyone can/or should go to college.

2) however, government operatives see this as an opportunity to exploit, hence they tout legislation that guarantees everyone can go to college for 'FREE'

3) the drones (many who will not go to college, wouldnt benefit society or themselves from an expensive philosophy degree, or many who are not capable of successfully completing a degree) come out and vote for these politicians in a quid pro quo scheme of 'free' (I constantly have to remind drones that nothing is free) education for votes.

4) these politicians get elected (and begin taking bribes from any special interest and corporate lobbyist that they can get their hands on in order to get reelected). They immediately plunder the current taxpayer by raising taxes or they plunder future taxpayers (borrowing money by issuing bonds or simply printing money) to pay for higher education

5) now here is where it gets tricky for leftist humanities majors ---- when more cash is allocated to spend on any given product or service and the supply of that product or service remains relatively constant ---- costs increase.

your just going to have to trust me on this leftists. also, if you try to offset the increased costs by diverting scarce resources from other sectors of the economy to increase the supply of a product and service -- then quality declines. With respect to education, you have folks that were more skilled doing other jobs (many productive and sustainable free market jobs) that are now incentivised to teach thereby dilluting the quality of education (hence the flatlining of outcomes I have talked about on this thread)

your going to have to trust me on this one leftists --- but I can offer an analogy -- it would be like expanding the NBA from the current 30-32 teams to 100 teams. Now put down your poetry book and ponder this --- if you double the number of players in the NBA is the quality of play going to increase with more players who otherwise wouldn't have had the skill level to play in the smaller league?

Similarly, what would happen to the quality of play anyway, if the government guaranteed the pay of these players and gave the fans free tickets to attend games ?

Indeed, the costs would skyrocket, quality would decline, and society would go bankrupt from forcing scarce resources from heretofore voluntary, profitable and sustainable free market enterprises to coercive and unsustainable government schemes that benefit only politicians and their cronies in that industry.

There is a lot more --- I will continue later since the liberal hoard probably didnt even read this far (closed minded and lazy) or if they did there head is about to explode pondering self-evident truths that run counter to what their highly paid, tenured college professor told them (wow, what a coincidence that he would be supporting a coercive scheme that he directly benefits from !)

later dudes, and please keep the petty invective and vitriol coming, it is funny.

[Blakk Metal]

Well, El Pescado Frio's cynicism disgusts me, and the nihilism that "life isn't meant to be good" oozes offends me.

Are you an Atheist?

Are you building strawmen?

government management of these industries fails because you have bureaucrats and politicians managing a system in which they dont use their own money, they dont suffer the consequences of bad decisions, they represent a monopoly, when a problem is not solved they generally require more money, and they are frequently bribed by the very industry managers that they are supposed to oversee.

the results of government management are known to all and any who have waited in line at any government office. for example, try registering a complaint with a government official and see what happens.


For laughs, Please name a government agency or bureau that solved the problem they were created to address and close up shop a success.

Freedmen's Bureau

government management of these industries fails because you have bureaucrats and politicians managing a system in which they dont use their own money, they dont suffer the consequences of bad decisions, they represent a monopoly, when a problem is not solved they generally require more money, and they are frequently bribed by the very industry managers that they are supposed to oversee.

the results of government management are known to all and any who have waited in line at any government office. for example, try registering a complaint with a government official and see what happens.


For laughs, Please name a government agency or bureau that solved the problem they were created to address and close up shop a success.

It appears the state has failed in educating you about punctuation and grammar. Also, have you ever tried complaining to a private company about af failed product? http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/series/bachelor-and-brignall-consumer-champions. Just a few of the many private sectors failures.

Oh, and Ministry of Information. Came along, gave out propaganda, and inspired people to win both World Wars. Then closed up again when no longer needed.

Propaganda is generally considered bad.

That wouldn't work. The wealthy don't use many public services, so they wouldn't have much to lose by not contributing, but those public services couldn't function without the wealthy.

In addition many of the people who do use public services are poor, and oftentimes don't pay taxes, because they cannot afford to.

we wouldnt need as much charity if a society was created to nurture and incentivise hard work rather than punish it.

The only punishment of hard work in the US is capitalism.

indeed, since the Left gained control of the regulatory regime and purse strings in 2006 -- poverty is at near record levels -- despite the fact that welfare, food stamps, unemployment ins, et al have expanded significantly.

Have you looked in the news yet? There was this event in 2008....

what statists dont understand is that if you subsidize unemployment, you get more of it

(Welfare - Wages) is negative in virtually all countries.

--- and if you tax productive behaviors, you get less of it.

Our taxes are currently lower than the apogee of the Laffer curve.

but more importantly, if you surrender your freedoms and entrust self-serving politicians to force egalitarian outcomes --- all you do is empower these politicians and their cronies to loot the national cookie jar with little long term improvement in income differences or poverty.

If you hate the government and communism so much, why don't you become a mutualist and go away?

indeed, these power brokers prefer that the problem is not solved so they can justify increased power for themselves.

Example?

when has a polltician ever declined more tax payer plunder when poverty increases precisely because of their policies of rewarding unemployment ?

Dude, just become a mutualist already.

And many people died outside of the USSR during Stalin's reign.

Paraphrased: "If corporations corrupt the state, why do you trust them?"

Corrected.

- De Beers
- Microsoft
- AT&T
- Comcast

It's official. You don't know shit about communism.

What alternate universe do you live in? The one where Cliff Burton is a pornstar?

Then the internet as we know it and underground music shouldn't exist.

Go back and read my posts -- I have addressed your illogic and debunked it ad nauseam.

Cite it then.

AuSable, I'm still having a hard time understanding exactly what it is you're advocating. According to you, you're not an anarchist, but in all the posts I've seen in this thread you constantly go on about how "evil" or "corrupt" the State/Government is.

If you believe the state is so evil, what manner of social organization would you consider ideal?

He seems to be a vulgar libertarian.

Hold on, you think AuSable will admit he is wrong?

Do you think anyone has ever convinced anyone else (older than a 5 year old) to change their political views on this forum?

Yes.

Well, it's hard to give names like Saudi Arabia or anarchy-bordering countries in Africa or countries that existed before Capitalism was a term, mainly because the term of Capitalism itself is unstable and now applied more freely than ever. My examples probably wouldn't pass as capitalist to you, so I won't bother.

no nation is strictly capitalist --- all have some level of government.

however, those with the least government interference in the economy experience far greater growth and increased standards of living than socialist or crony capitalist nations.

Let me guess: You'll point to 1800's America and get embarrassed.

Though, I do agree with you in general, I disagree with your assertion that "hard work" is bad. I don't believe working smart and working hard are mutually exclusive. One can work hard doing something the wrong way (the dumb way) or they can work hard doing a task the right (smart or better) way.

I think it is more about not being properly compensated for ones labor that is the real issue, one can work smart, and still not recieve what they're due.

If you are concerned about downtrodden workers -- then open your own firm, compete against supposedly evil selfish owners who 'exploit' workers by giving them a paycheck via voluntary and peaceful exchange.

indeed, the greatest service anyone can provide is a sustainable job, when none were available previously by risking capital and foregoing instant gratification to build a viable business.

All my ideas aren't viable, because the capitalist system currently wants stupid computer shit, not useful stuff, like Fluorine-18 sanitation.

in sum, most people I have worked for were decent, practical, and hardworking folks who geniunely cared about they workers and paid them as much as was economically feasible to grow a company and make a sustainable profit.

You must live here. Tell me, do you live in a valley?

As a former Fascist, I'd say Fascism and Socialism (Syndicalism to be specific) are closely related, but definitely not Communism.

No other disputes?

We know what you meant by 'communism'.

If you are concerned about downtrodden workers -- then open your own firm, compete against supposedly evil selfish owners who 'exploit' workers by giving them a paycheck via voluntary and peaceful exchange.

indeed, the greatest service anyone can provide is a sustainable job, when none were available previously by risking capital and foregoing instant gratification to build a viable business.

in sum, most people I have worked for were decent, practical, and hardworking folks who geniunely cared about they workers and paid them as much as was economically feasible to grow a company and make a sustainable profit.

in contrast, most of the Leftists I have met rarely gave to charity because they expected and lobbied for charity to be provided with other people's money against their will.

Indeed, evangelical christians are the most generous chartiable givers:

http://therooftopblog.wordpress.com/200 ... -abc-says/

Not only is such utopianism and voluntarism impossible, the act of giving charity is counterproductive and only serves to perpetuate social evils. The inimitable Oscar Wilde said it best:

Now and then, in the course of the century, a great man of science, like Darwin; a great poet, like Keats; a fine critical spirit, like M. Renan; a supreme artist, like Flaubert, has been able to isolate himself, to keep himself out of reach of the clamorous claims of others, to stand ‘under the shelter of the wall,’ as Plato puts it, and so to realise the perfection of what was in him, to his own incomparable gain, and to the incomparable and lasting gain of the whole world. These, however, are exceptions. The majority of people spoil their lives by an unhealthy and exaggerated altruism – are forced, indeed, so to spoil them. They find themselves surrounded by hideous poverty, by hideous ugliness, by hideous starvation. It is inevitable that they should be strongly moved by all this. The emotions of man are stirred more quickly than man’s intelligence; and, as I pointed out some time ago in an article on the function of criticism, it is much more easy to have sympathy with suffering than it is to have sympathy with thought. Accordingly, with admirable, though misdirected intentions, they very seriously and very sentimentally set themselves to the task of remedying the evils that they see. But their remedies do not cure the disease: they merely prolong it. Indeed, their remedies are part of the disease.

They try to solve the problem of poverty, for instance, by keeping the poor alive; or, in the case of a very advanced school, by amusing the poor.

But this is not a solution: it is an aggravation of the difficulty. The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible. And the altruistic virtues have really prevented the carrying out of this aim. Just as the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realised by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it, so, in the present state of things in England, the people who do most harm are the people who try to do most good; and at last we have had the spectacle of men who have really studied the problem and know the life – educated men who live in the East End – coming forward and imploring the community to restrain its altruistic impulses of charity, benevolence, and the like. They do so on the ground that such charity degrades and demoralises. They are perfectly right. Charity creates a multitude of sins.

There is also this to be said. It is immoral to use private property in order to alleviate the horrible evils that result from the institution of private property. It is both immoral and unfair.

The same dilemma happens with welfare.

I am off for dinner.

had fun, but still not impressed.

For example, I have tried to engage as many liberal fallacies as possible.

And 90% of the responses are inane retorts devoid of fact, logic, and empirical evidence.

the other 10%, I have responded to with facts, logic, and empirical evidence that by any objective measure remains unchallenged.

I will engage and debunk servile big government lovers who believe that surrendering individual rights and responsibilities to a group of politicians playing with other people's money with little or no accountability will lead to anything other than corruption, inequality, and waste ----- at a later date.

amusingly, these same liberals who praise government's efficacy -- lament corporate corruption that is enabled by these same willing politicians who are handsomely paid with special interest votes and campaign contributions.

but when have liberals ever been rational, logical and objective.

In all fairness, this guy seems more like a minarchist than a conservative, given that the point of this thread seems to be him going on about how liberals should really become libertarians.

Thomas Hobbes' words were in vain, then.

Good.

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

a) Free public education for everyone, funded by the state. Teachers get payed by the state the average wage in the private market or more. In the case of poor countries, tighly regulated foreign aid should fund that same public education.

(x)Hilarious. As Ausable has pointed out over a dozen times, nothing is free, public education comes at a price. How can you seriously use "free" and "funded" in the very same sentence? Sure teachers get "average" wage, and I bet public schools get loads of other goodies too. The problem is they're no price controls, or incentive to improve. A school that performs horribly won't be closed, thus precious resources are often wasted on inefficient bureaucracy. When prices increase, as they do, so will taxes..

b) Read (a). Change education for healthcare. Doctors get payed by the state the average wage in the private market or more.
c) Read (a). Change public education for food. Food is bought from private producers by the state, then cooked by state workers in state-owned venues and provided to the poor, no questions asked.

Read (x), Change schools for healthcare and food

d) The state hires construction workers and architects, pays them the average wages they get in the private market or more. State buys the materials for construction. The homeless get the homes that are built, and start paying for them as soon as they get a job.

Yes, we did something that was essentially the same as this. By fueling credit and resources in to the home market, the government effectively created the 2008 housing bubble. More people were made homeless because of it.

e) The state can make arrangements with private companies for the latter to hire workers in exchange for certain benefits...or the state can hire some unemployed to work for the state.

The private market is more than capable of providing enough jobs given the opportunity to.

All of it, payed for through the taxes of all citizens, who are all entitled to the use of said services. If they don't want to use those services, they can go to the private market, but they still have their duty, as citizens, to pay their taxes to the state to, therefor, ensure the welfare of the nation as a whole.

Ok, so you're essentially saying we have a choice to go to the private market, but not to choose what services we purchase? That's about as silly as you paying my cellphone bill every month. The duty of the state is to name provide services that benefit us all fairly. Namely defense and law. Healthcare doesn't benefit us all equally, because some people are live less healthier than others. Soup kitchens don't benefit us all, because some will eat more than others, so on and so forth. These ventures are best left to the private sector.

When you decide to live in society, you are accepting to submitt to certain basic rules. You are accepting the state's authority over you to ensure your lifelong welfare and security.
Basic Thomas Hobbes.

[/quote]
Sure, in certain countries that is true, but the fact that America was established on the premise of limited government and maximum liberty is what made it so successful. Any state you're dreaming of is just a nation led by bullies, and because of this it won't work.

P.S. Your last paragraph came off as fanatical

[Liriena]

wake-up folks, the federal government is not your friend -- it is organized crime and it has bought you off very cheaply with 'hope and change' rhetoric and a few measly handouts that will do nothing to improve your life and living standards.

Oh, now I finally see where you are coming from.
I bet you only started to be such a proud anti-government libertarian when Obama took office.

[Libertas Liber]

wake-up folks, the federal government is not your friend -- it is organized crime and it has bought you off very cheaply with 'hope and change' rhetoric and a few measly handouts that will do nothing to improve your life and living standards.

Oh, now I finally see where you are coming from.
I bet you only started to be such a proud anti-government libertarian when Obama took office.

No one that vehemently against govt. would care who was president, unless they were... well, like him. To make the argument that he dislikes Obama but somehow was fine with other president's policies is a stretch.

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

wake-up folks, the federal government is not your friend -- it is organized crime and it has bought you off very cheaply with 'hope and change' rhetoric and a few measly handouts that will do nothing to improve your life and living standards.

Oh, now I finally see where you are coming from.
I bet you only started to be such a proud anti-government libertarian when Obama took office.

Or you know, he could of started before when governments were committing all of those atrocious crimes; genocide, war and the likes

[Mavorpen]

Oh, now I finally see where you are coming from.
I bet you only started to be such a proud anti-government libertarian when Obama took office.

Or you know, he could of started before when governments were committing all of those atrocious crimes; genocide, war and the likes

So he has teenage angst and wants to "rise up" against "the man" because of "oppression." Yeah, that's so much better.

[Liriena]

a) Free public education for everyone, funded by the state. Teachers get payed by the state the average wage in the private market or more. In the case of poor countries, tighly regulated foreign aid should fund that same public education.

(x)Hilarious. As Ausable has pointed out over a dozen times, nothing is free, public education comes at a price. How can you seriously use "free" and "funded" in the very same sentence? Sure teachers get "average" wage, and I bet public schools get loads of other goodies too. The problem is they're no price controls, or incentive to improve. A school that performs horribly won't be closed, thus precious resources are often wasted on inefficient bureaucracy. When prices increase, as they do, so will taxes..

Implying that public education is inherently against any sort of quality control on the service it provides. While it may be true that the latest governments were guilty of providing mediocre service with no quality controls, incentives for improvement or punishments for mediocrity, that is most certainly not inherent to it.

b) Read (a). Change education for healthcare. Doctors get payed by the state the average wage in the private market or more.
c) Read (a). Change public education for food. Food is bought from private producers by the state, then cooked by state workers in state-owned venues and provided to the poor, no questions asked.

Read (x), Change schools for healthcare and food

d) The state hires construction workers and architects, pays them the average wages they get in the private market or more. State buys the materials for construction. The homeless get the homes that are built, and start paying for them as soon as they get a job.

Yes, we did something that was essentially the same as this. By fueling credit and resources in to the home market, the government effectively created the 2008 housing bubble. More people were made homeless because of it.

Actually, it wasn't.

e) The state can make arrangements with private companies for the latter to hire workers in exchange for certain benefits...or the state can hire some unemployed to work for the state.

The private market is more than capable of providing enough jobs given the opportunity to.

So many schools of economic thought would like to have a word with you.

All of it, payed for through the taxes of all citizens, who are all entitled to the use of said services. If they don't want to use those services, they can go to the private market, but they still have their duty, as citizens, to pay their taxes to the state to, therefor, ensure the welfare of the nation as a whole.

Ok, so you're essentially saying we have a choice to go to the private market, but not to choose what services we purchase? That's about as silly as you paying my cellphone bill every month. The duty of the state is to name provide services that benefit us all fairly. Namely defense and law. Healthcare doesn't benefit us all equally, because some people are live less healthier than others. Soup kitchens don't benefit us all, because some will eat more than others, so on and so forth. These ventures are best left to the private sector.

So those who don't have any resources whatsoever to purchase from the private sector should just go fuck themselves?

When you decide to live in society, you are accepting to submitt to certain basic rules. You are accepting the state's authority over you to ensure your lifelong welfare and security.
Basic Thomas Hobbes.

Sure, in certain countries that is true, but the fact that America was established on the premise of limited government and maximum liberty is what made it so successful (1). Any state you're dreaming of is just a nation led by bullies, and because of this it won't work.(2)

Limited government in the sense of respect of individual political liberties, not in the sense of "fuck those less fortunate than me, I don't wanna pay taxes or regulate the economy".
1) Not really. What made the United States successful was a good early distribution of acquired land amongst the population and the massive profits from lending to other nations in the early twentieth century.
2) So many nations would like a word with you right now.

P.S. Your last paragraph came off as fanatical

[Liriena]

Oh, now I finally see where you are coming from.
I bet you only started to be such a proud anti-government libertarian when Obama took office.

No one that vehemently against govt. would care who was president, unless they were... well, like him. To make the argument that he dislikes Obama but somehow was fine with other president's policies is a stretch.

Not much of a stretch when that part I quoted is obviously a reference to Obama.

[Liriena]

Oh, now I finally see where you are coming from.
I bet you only started to be such a proud anti-government libertarian when Obama took office.

Or you know, he could of started before when governments were committing all of those atrocious crimes; genocide, war and the likes

I can't tell whether that you just said is an appeal to emotion or a generalization...or both. It is, quite blatantly, a complete and utter sidestepping of the actual issue: government intervention in the economy. Talking about genocides when we are discussing economy is nothing short of a crude attempt to get an emotional response to foster your arguments' credibility.

And if you are trying to somehow imply that supporting "big government" is supporting genocide and war, I think I don't even need to say how ridiculous that is. And no, such a statement wouldn't be true even through some thinly-stretched guilt by association.

[Yuktova]

Everybody deserves wealth earned through hard work or inherited from the hard work of their parents or other ancestors.
But everybody also deserves, as explicitly said by all mayor human rights' treaties in the world, several basic goods and services such as education, healthcare, food, housing and a dignified job.

And the two are hardly mutually exclussive.

Good starting points.
How do the downtrodden get a proper education?
Shall we force teachers to teach for less wages and send them to the world's hellholes?
How shall the downtrodden get proper medical care?
Shall we enslave doctors and send them to the impoverished nations?
How shall we give everyone a proper diet?
Shall we enslave farmers?
How shall we give everyone a proper home?
Shall we enslave carpenters or take peoples money to give to habitat for humanity?
How do we give everyone a dignified job?
What is a dignified job? What if no one needs someone to do a dignified job for them?

Really? There's simple technical solutions to all of this. I'm thinking that those untrained in technology, and science (mainly conservatives) really don't know what to do.

1.The poor can get public education if they wish, and there's also Khan Academy. http://www.khanacademy.org/
2. Proper medical care could be provided by a mobile hospital, have you heard of the train that gives out medicine to the poor in South Africa?
3. We can educate people about proper diets, like we do today.
4. We can build sophisticated apartment buildings, like these for those who want it. Individual housing is much a "bitch" anyway, it uses too many resources, and is rather inefficient. Proper social apartments are much better.
5. We increase the incentive to do a "non dignified" job. For example, before we can make robots which can mine the mines, we would instill and promote people become miners, give them good pay, and most importantly, lower the working hours tremendously. That, alone, increases incentive to become a miner.

[AuSable River]

wake-up folks, the federal government is not your friend -- it is organized crime and it has bought you off very cheaply with 'hope and change' rhetoric and a few measly handouts that will do nothing to improve your life and living standards.

Oh, now I finally see where you are coming from.
I bet you only started to be such a proud anti-government libertarian when Obama took office.

Actually honey, the movement got started when bush bailed out the banks.

essentially you have offered nothing but labeling people and invective.

similarly, the rest of the statists on this thread have just contributed trollish or inane retorts.

the only statists who tried to debunk my arguments with misinformation and illogical arguments have fled

yet none have refuted with any shred of logical, empirical and factual argument that :

1) government is corrupt

2) the bigger the government the more corrupt

3) the more corrupt, the more damagiing to society

case in point, our $50-100 trillion dollar unfunded liabilities thanks to big govt run amok.

which clueless liberals tried to defend with the ridiculous argument that 'govt cant go bankrupt' ???!!

but if it feels good to believe in a failed ideological system -- then nothing I can say can change that.

like the old saying goes;

if your young and a conservative, you have no heart ---- if your old and liberal, you have no brain.

[AuSable River]

Good starting points.
How do the downtrodden get a proper education?
Shall we force teachers to teach for less wages and send them to the world's hellholes?
How shall the downtrodden get proper medical care?
Shall we enslave doctors and send them to the impoverished nations?
How shall we give everyone a proper diet?
Shall we enslave farmers?
How shall we give everyone a proper home?
Shall we enslave carpenters or take peoples money to give to habitat for humanity?
How do we give everyone a dignified job?
What is a dignified job? What if no one needs someone to do a dignified job for them?

Really? There's simple technical solutions to all of this. I'm thinking that those untrained in technology, and science (mainly conservatives) really don't know what to do.

1.The poor can get public education if they wish, and there's also Khan Academy. http://www.khanacademy.org/
2. Proper medical care could be provided by a mobile hospital, have you heard of the train that gives out medicine to the poor in South Africa?
3. We can educate people about proper diets, like we do today.
4. We can build sophisticated apartment buildings, like these for those who want it. Individual housing is much a "bitch" anyway, it uses too many resources, and is rather inefficient. Proper social apartments are much better.
5. We increase the incentive to do a "non dignified" job. For example, before we can make robots which can mine the mines, we would instill and promote people become miners, give them good pay, and most importantly, lower the working hours tremendously. That, alone, increases incentive to become a miner.

1. Khan academy is private and free --- good answer

2. charitable organizations can do this effectively without the tremendous overhead of paying for a government middle man.

3. public school lunches are among the worse ---- french fries everyday, pizza, chicken nuggets (heavily breaded), sugar drinks, et al.
moreover, no self-respecting kid buys or eats the vegetables -- they buy the chips.

4. you wouldnt have to implement this plan, if govt didnt waste trillions on infrastructure that subsidizes rich people living in rural areas and commuting to cities. Indeed, the sad fact of this boondoggle is that politicians justify mass transit and interstate roads because they claim they will reduce congestion --- yet nobody rides mass transit, it almost always goes broke.

5. good luck paying $500 a month electricity bills due to the cost of artificially higher govt mandated wages.

[Beiluxia]

Yeah, Republicans don't care about poor people. What's your point?

So you can't refute my sources. Mm'kay. I've won.

]

mavoren do you realize that the many of your posts, when they are not simply trollish retorts, actually support my assertions?

hence, do you even understand the substance of the debate?

for example, I stated in a previous post that the US government that has been the most heavily involved institution in health care since the creation of medicare in the 1960s has failed utterly to control costs, and your 'rebut' is ...........................

........................wait for it...................................wait for it.............................................its

coming......................... the graph above that shows US spending on health care per person is greater than any other nation?!!?!


Indeed, prior to government becoming heavily involved in health care costs were 5% of GDP with pretty good outcomes ------ now 50 years later medicare-medicaid and the like are survival level threats to the republic with health care costs consuming 25% of GDP and Washington and obama are not talking about improving outcomes, they are constantly talking about costs !??!!

essentially government has thrown trillions into health care without any significant improvement in outcomes.

same story for education, national defense, envirnoment, poverty, et al.

what the idealistic humanitarian statist drones fail to understand is that government is using these 'wars on poverty' 'wars on illiteracy', 'wars on health care' as an excuse to control tremendous sums of wealth to gain and maintain power, wealth, and privledge for themselves and their well connected lobbyist cronies.

and well-intentioned dupes like yourself and others on this thread are serving as useful unpaid pawns in this scheme while health care costs rise--- quality care declines, spending on poverty rises--- poverty skyrockets, unemployment insurance expands --- unemployment rises, professor pay expands ---- education costs skyrocket, et al......


wake-up folks, the federal government is not your friend -- it is organized crime and it has bought you off very cheaply with 'hope and change' rhetoric and a few measly handouts that will do nothing to improve your life and living standards.

and no, without a behemoth federal government ,bill gates isnt going to take over the world --- government still has an essential role in protecting property, providing legal services, and balancing political power in Washington.

What you seem to fail to realise in this regard is that all of the countries listed above have nationalised, "socialised", government-run healthcare except for the US. They seem to be spending a lot less per person than we are at the moment for healthcare. Many instances seems to contradict your claim that government intervention in healthcare will raise costs.

[AuSable River]

]

mavoren do you realize that the many of your posts, when they are not simply trollish retorts, actually support my assertions?

hence, do you even understand the substance of the debate?

for example, I stated in a previous post that the US government that has been the most heavily involved institution in health care since the creation of medicare in the 1960s has failed utterly to control costs, and your 'rebut' is ...........................

........................wait for it...................................wait for it.............................................its

coming......................... the graph above that shows US spending on health care per person is greater than any other nation?!!?!


Indeed, prior to government becoming heavily involved in health care costs were 5% of GDP with pretty good outcomes ------ now 50 years later medicare-medicaid and the like are survival level threats to the republic with health care costs consuming 25% of GDP and Washington and obama are not talking about improving outcomes, they are constantly talking about costs !??!!

essentially government has thrown trillions into health care without any significant improvement in outcomes.

same story for education, national defense, envirnoment, poverty, et al.

what the idealistic humanitarian statist drones fail to understand is that government is using these 'wars on poverty' 'wars on illiteracy', 'wars on health care' as an excuse to control tremendous sums of wealth to gain and maintain power, wealth, and privledge for themselves and their well connected lobbyist cronies.

and well-intentioned dupes like yourself and others on this thread are serving as useful unpaid pawns in this scheme while health care costs rise--- quality care declines, spending on poverty rises--- poverty skyrockets, unemployment insurance expands --- unemployment rises, professor pay expands ---- education costs skyrocket, et al......


wake-up folks, the federal government is not your friend -- it is organized crime and it has bought you off very cheaply with 'hope and change' rhetoric and a few measly handouts that will do nothing to improve your life and living standards.

and no, without a behemoth federal government ,bill gates isnt going to take over the world --- government still has an essential role in protecting property, providing legal services, and balancing political power in Washington.

What you seem to fail to realise in this regard is that all of the countries listed above have nationalised, "socialised", government-run healthcare except for the US. They seem to be spending a lot less per person than we are at the moment for healthcare. Many instances seems to contradict your claim that government intervention in healthcare will raise costs.

the best comparison is not nation to nation. That is like apples and oranges.

it is by looking at changes within a single nation and outcomes in the USA have not changed much since the 1960s when government began bankrupting the nation with health care spending run amok that is primarily wasted by

1) bureaucrats and politicians spending money more to get reelected and attract votes than to improve health care and reduce costs.

2) by patients using health care resources in an economically unsustainable manner because they dont pay for these services directly.

in sum, the system is doing everything possible to raise costs without accountability at either end of the exchange.

[The Caldari Union]

The state is the end-all of society.

Government by defintion cannot be corrupt.

[You-Gi-Owe]

Good starting points.
a) How do the downtrodden get a proper education?
Shall we force teachers to teach for less wages and send them to the world's hellholes?
b) How shall the downtrodden get proper medical care?
Shall we enslave doctors and send them to the impoverished nations?
c) How shall we give everyone a proper diet?
Shall we enslave farmers?
d) How shall we give everyone a proper home?
Shall we enslave carpenters or take peoples money to give to habitat for humanity?
e) How do we give everyone a dignified job?
What is a dignified job? What if no one needs someone to do a dignified job for them?

a) Free public education for everyone, funded by the state. Teachers get payed by the state the average wage in the private market or more. In the case of poor countries, tighly regulated foreign aid should fund that same public education.
b) Read (a). Change education for healthcare. Doctors get payed by the state the average wage in the private market or more.
c) Read (a). Change public education for food. Food is bought from private producers by the state, then cooked by state workers in state-owned venues and provided to the poor, no questions asked.
d) The state hires construction workers and architects, pays them the average wages they get in the private market or more. State buys the materials for construction. The homeless get the homes that are built, and start paying for them as soon as they get a job.
e) The state can make arrangements with private companies for the latter to hire workers in exchange for certain benefits...or the state can hire some unemployed to work for the state.

All of it, payed for through the taxes of all citizens, who are all entitled to the use of said services. If they don't want to use those services, they can go to the private market, but they still have their duty, as citizens, to pay their taxes to the state to, therefor, ensure the welfare of the nation as a whole.

When you decide to live in society, you are accepting to submitt to certain basic rules. You are accepting the state's authority over you to ensure your lifelong welfare and security.

Basic Thomas Hobbes.

All well and good, up to a point. Imagining a flat percentage tax on all citizens, what would be the likely percentage that they would have to pay? There is a point where people turn to crime or even revolution, when govt. taxes are too oppressive. Just for reference, I think the Bible calls anything over twenty percent, "slavery", but I don't know if that figures in tithing or not.

What do you do if the citizens resist paying for govt. spending? What do you do if the lower classes won't be motivated to improve their lot in life?