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

[Blakk Metal]

Again, if they're the dominant force, what prevents them from crushing a smaller business with a better idea? Moreover, what keeps the bigger business from stealing their idea?

If they are in control of the government, nothing is stopping them from crushng a smaller business. That's what is happening right now in the economy.

There's this thing called a patent: you come up with an idea, you tell the government about your idea, and you become the only one who can use the idea for a period of time. Anyone who violates this pays you big money.

Patent trolling is a great way to abuse the supposedly free market.

Patents are bad and you should feel bad.

How is not wanting legislation that restricts civil rights=big government?
Sheesh, has logic been lost in the world?

Logic is prohibited during the times of summer.

Obviously, the U.S is a Christian nation and thus, we must enact sodomy laws. For great justice.

Corrected.

[Swith Witherward]

Logic is prohibited during the times of summer.

Summer can't end soon enough.

[AuSable River]

there is nothing stupid with this --- however, I have been trying to convince them that everyone in a free society would be far better off -- including these government types -- since the present system in the USA will collapse in our lifetime.

By your own standard, GDP per capita PPP, the US is experiencing (albeit somewhat slow) growth. It is experiencing a very low rate of growth in its GDP, but the growth is still there. Unemployment has gone down from 9% to 8.2%, and as time goes on and the economy continues to recover we will exit the global slowdown and things will normalize. The USA is not on the verge of a collapse.

the USA still has a substantial free market, but we are going in the wrong direction.

we have over $100 trillion in unfunded debt for entitlement programs that will bankrupt the nation.

within our lifetime -- thanks entirely to government policies designed to get votes from elderly voters.

btw, the unemployment rate is a joke statistic -- the real one is that over 25 million Americans are either unemployed or underemployed.

record number on welfare, food stamps, long term unemployment, lowest labor participation rate in 40 years, and highest poverty level in 45 years.

the list goes on and on ....... yet predictably the partisans bellow that all is fine ??!!

i heard the same crap from the republican drones prior to 2008 --- but remember the statist took Congress in 2006 when unemployment was 5%, growth was 4%, the debt that year was only 150 billion.

it took crony capitalist republicans 12 years to damage the economy -- it took pelosi less than 2 years.

[Galiantus]

If they are in control of the government, nothing is stopping them from crushng a smaller business. That's what is happening right now in the economy.

Bullshit. Vote the corrupt politicians out.

You don't beleive it? Who actually has the money to get into office? Who has the biggest vested interest in government? Who can contribute the most to political campeigns? Who can bribe the best? That's right, rich corporations. Who would've guessed?

There's this thing called a patent: you come up with an idea, you tell the government about your idea, and you become the only one who can use the idea for a period of time. Anyone who violates this pays you big money.

With no government, good luck with this.

Making assumptions again, I see...

[The Church of Unity]

It feels like you make these threads so that liberals can attack your arguments.

I'm a conservative, and personally, you make us look bad. Everything that people are saying about you is right. You're being too stereotypical, thinking that all liberals (or all conservatives, for that matter) are the same.

[Mavorpen]

You don't beleive it? Who actually has the money to get into office? Who has the biggest vested interest in government? Who can contribute the most to political campeigns? Who can bribe the best? That's right, rich corporations. Who would've guessed?

You do realize all of this can be prevented, right? But of course, apparently money is speech in America. That was ruled by the Supreme Court, and is again not an inherent fault of government.

[Swith Witherward]

the list goes on and on ....... yet predictably the partisans bellow that all is fine ??!!

A change in Presidents won't change this list. Even a change in Congress or Senate won't magically make everything work as its supposed to.

[Socialdemokraterne]

we have over $100 trillion in unfunded debt for entitlement programs that will bankrupt the nation.

The current US gross federal debt is approximately 16 trillion USD. Where is the remaining 84 trillion dollars to reach an even hundred?

btw, the unemployment rate is a joke statistic -- the real one is that over 25 million Americans are either unemployed or underemployed.

record number on welfare, food stamps, long term unemployment, lowest labor participation rate in 40 years, and highest poverty level in 45 years.

the list goes on and on ....... yet predictably the partisans bellow that all is fine ??!!

So show me some statistics. And don't cite a blog or a newspaper.

[Libertas Liber]

we have over $100 trillion in unfunded debt for entitlement programs that will bankrupt the nation.

The current US gross federal debt is approximately 16 trillion USD. Where is the remaining 84 trillion dollars to reach an even hundred?

I assume he is including states' debts and unfunded Social Security benefits. I don't know what the number is or if he is correct but if you include the entire nation's debt, then it's over 16 trillion. I don't feel using it is fair as it's each states business to handle their debt (unfunded programs is another matter), but hey 16 trillion by itself is quite a large sum.

[AuSable River]

amen bro.

also, they are servile OR they may have a vested interest in big government if they are a corrupt corporation being subsidized or a special interest group given preferential treatment.

it is no surprise that industries that are heavily subsidized by government largesse -- support government.

there is nothing stupid with this --- however, I have been trying to convince them that everyone in a free society would be far better off -- including these government types -- since the present system in the USA will collapse in our lifetime.

most likely, our government will monetize the debt and destroy the dollar rendering it useless.

paradoxically the left is worried about firms that are too big to fail ---- what will they say when the US dollar collapses in our lifetime ??

we have already seen the US credit rating lowered.

the presently strong dollar is an illusion driven by a weak euro and a bad global economy.

The definition of a free society to you is one where corporations hold all the power, the government does nothing but exist, or may not exist at all to you, and the people have no say. Whether you outright claim that this is exactly what you support, it is the result of what you support, whether you deny it or not. Hardly a free society at all. More like, as Nationstates classifies it, a Corporate Police State.

corporations cant hold power if consumer dont buy their products or services OR competitors provide greater value OR a substitution good becomes available.

and your wrong -- in a free society everyone has a say:

you can boycott,

you can find a substitution good,

you can find a competitor (except government there has never been an absolute private sector monopoly)

you can open your own firm,

and as a last resort, even a limited government can in extreme cases break up a monopoly that undermines national security.

In contrast, the illogical statists incredibly advocates the mother of all monopolies --- the federal government -- to protect us from the fantasy of a single monopoly in the private sector.

[Alien Space Bats]

sorry, but you have so many fallacies in your post, I only have time to respond to the first one.

Can the endeavor in question be run in such a way as to produce a profit. If not, you claim, then it is not worthwhile; if so, then it is worthwhile.--space bat

absolutely, if an enterprise (either public or private) isnt profitable then it is unsustainable.

the more unsustainable enterprises a society practices --- the faster that society's decline.

if you cant understand this self-evident truth --- there is no point in trying to reason with you.

Really?

Then let me ask you this, Canoe Boy:

• Do you believe that society would be better off handing responsibility for police protection over to private industry and requiring every citizen to hire whatever level of police protection they desire?
  
  
  • If so, what do you do about people who can't afford police protection?
    
    
    • Does society have no interest in protecting them?
      
      
    • Are efforts to protect such people necessarily "unsustainable"?
      
      
      • If so, is it in the interest for such people to simply be left vulnerable to victimization? Is that a good thing?
  • Do you believe that there is never any justification for society doing something that isn't profitable in the here and now?
    
    
    • With regards to this latter point, if something is unprofitable now, but is likely to become profitable later, and there is some non-pecuniary justification for doing it now, is it your opinion that it should be put off until such a time as it can be done profitably by private industry?
      
      
      • In particular, do you think that the U.S. government should have waited 30 years for the level of demand in the West to justify the construction of a transcontinental railroad, even if it left California isolated from the rest of the Nation, and therefore essentially indefensible?
        
        
      • Likewise, do you think that it was a mistake for the U.S. to build the Panama Canal so that U.S. warships could travel directly between the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific, rather than waiting for private industry to do it in response to trade needs, even if it had meant a delay of several decades in the Canal's construction?
        
        
      • And, in the modern day, do you believe that the U.S. government should be unconcerned if IT services are outsourced to India and computer parts production is outsourced to Asia, even if it places the U.S. economy at risk of being cut off from its IT resources and the U.S. military running out of so-called "smart ordinance" in a possible future Pacific War (in the former case, due to the interruption of international communications between India and the U.S., and in the latter case due to the loss of access to production centers in Asia)?
    • More generally, can a Nation - any Nation - simply expect that free market forces will work to its national security interests, or in such a way as to benefit its internal political processes? Does the Free Market Fairy magnanimously bless all endeavors, whether economic or non-economic?

[Mavorpen]

corporations cant hold power if consumer dont buy their products or services OR competitors provide greater value OR a substitution good becomes available.

All of which would be completely improbable considering there is nothing to prevent the large company from crushing all competition.

and your wrong -- in a free society everyone has a say:

you can boycott,

you can find a substitution good,

you can find a competitor (except government there has never been an absolute private sector monopoly)

you can open your own firm,

and as a last resort, even a limited government can in extreme cases break up a monopoly that undermines national security.

All of this happens under a government, except substantially more easier.

In contrast, the illogical statists incredibly advocates the mother of all monopolies --- the federal government -- to protect us from the fantasy of a single monopoly in the private sector.

Really? Way to completely ignore U.S. history.

[The UK in Exile]

the government is corrupt. the government is a democracy. democracy is government of the people, by the people, for the people. ergo the government is corrupt because people are corrupt. ergo removing the government will not prevent corruption. it will decentralize it. decentralization improves efficency.

conclusion: liberals prefer big government because it limits individual corruption.

[Socialdemokraterne]

The current US gross federal debt is approximately 16 trillion USD. Where is the remaining 84 trillion dollars to reach an even hundred?

I assume he is including states' debts and unfunded Social Security benefits. I don't know what the number is or if he is correct but if you include the entire nation's debt, then it's over 16 trillion. I don't feel using it is fair as it's each states business to handle their debt (unfunded programs is another matter), but hey 16 trillion by itself is quite a large sum.

Even if I go with the debt clock, it's only about 56 trillion for absolutely everything. No small sum to sneeze at, but certainly not the fiscal Armageddon we've been pointed toward.

Source:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[Mavorpen]

Even if I go with the debt clock, it's only about 56 trillion for absolutely everything. No small sum to sneeze at, but certainly not the fiscal Armageddon we've been pointed toward.

Source:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

I wonder if the OP realizes that economists put the economy over the deficit in terms of importance.

[Libertas Liber]

the government is corrupt. the government is a democracy. democracy is government of the people, by the people, for the people. ergo the government is corrupt because people are corrupt. ergo removing the government will not prevent corruption. it will decentralize it. decentralization improves efficency.

conclusion: liberals prefer big government because it limits individual corruption.

So do as the Constitution demands, no more no less? Leave the rest to the states or people (as it prescribes)? If this is what you mean, then I'm for that.

[Alien Space Bats]

i responded to the first sentence that was a grievous fallacy.

why continue responding to fallacy on top of fallacy.

alien bat has to address this first nonsense that something is sustainable without making a profit.

indeed, how in the heck can you grow an enterprise without making a profit ????

ah yes -- you can plunder by coercion profitable firms.

but remember this ---- 'socialism is great, until you run out of other people's money' --maggie

see greece, cuba, north korea, soviet union, california, detroit, et al.

So, in other words, your position is that, indeed, profit is the be-all and end-all of human existence.

Love? Meaningless and useless, unless someone makes a profit from it.

Justice? Worthless, unless someone makes a profit from it.

Safety? Undefinable, save within the context of profit.

Family? Families exist only to make a profit; there's no other point to having or rearing children, other than to profit from the little buggers.

<pause>

I don't think you really believe that, because only an idiot would - but that's the position you're trying to stake out.

<pause>

Do you want to reconsider that stance?

[Socialdemokraterne]

Even if I go with the debt clock, it's only about 56 trillion for absolutely everything. No small sum to sneeze at, but certainly not the fiscal Armageddon we've been pointed toward.

Source:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

I wonder if the OP realizes that economists put the economy over the deficit in terms of importance.

I have no idea. The OP isn't using GDP per capita PPP correctly, so I'm assuming that their training in economics is limited. Not that I'm a regular John M. Keynes, but still.

[Disserbia]

I think its a troll guys...

[Mavorpen]

I think its a troll guys...

No, trolls have better grammar and sentence structure.

[Alien Space Bats]

Oh, and BTW, Canoe Boy...

I'm guessing that you're having a hard time responding to my posts because you don't know what the term "non-pecuniary" means.

[Socialdemokraterne]

Oh, and BTW, Canoe Boy...

I'm guessing that you're having a hard time responding to my posts because you don't know what the term "non-pecuniary" means.

Why are you calling the OP "Canoe Boy"?

[The UK in Exile]

the government is corrupt. the government is a democracy. democracy is government of the people, by the people, for the people. ergo the government is corrupt because people are corrupt. ergo removing the government will not prevent corruption. it will decentralize it. decentralization improves efficency.

conclusion: liberals prefer big government because it limits individual corruption.

So do as the Constitution demands, no more no less? Leave the rest to the states or people (as it prescribes)? If this is what you mean, then I'm for that.

not quite, though essentially I agree.

to put it more plainly.

government is corrupt because people are corrupt.

the "right" prefer smaller government because they think government corruption is the worst of two evils and see individual corruption as the price of doing business.
the "left" prefer bigger government because they think individual corruption is the worst of two evils and see government corruption as the price of doing business.

[Libertas Liber]

Oh, and BTW, Canoe Boy...

I'm guessing that you're having a hard time responding to my posts because you don't know what the term "non-pecuniary" means.

It's obvious by now that the he is either AFK or offline. The missing green banner with the word "Online" suggests the latter, but I understand you just had to get out your insult.

[Mavorpen]

Oh, and BTW, Canoe Boy...

I'm guessing that you're having a hard time responding to my posts because you don't know what the term "non-pecuniary" means.

It's obvious by now that the he is either AFK or offline. The missing green banner with the word "Online" suggests the latter, but I understand you just had to get out your insult.

I think it's more of the fact that the OP has refused to respond to ASB's posts in full. Instead, the OP simply states his posts are full of fallacies, and cherry picks which parts to respond to.