Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 7:50 pm
I am disgusted by extreme individualism and the cult of personality over the goodness of greed...but hey, I'm not the one name-calling!
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
AuSable River wrote: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.
Liriena wrote:HeresJohnny wrote:Why do conservatives want bigger businesses?
Because of the delusion that they live in an economy with markets of perfect competition in which the market provides exactly what everyone needs and wants on both ends, and everyone is consciously or subconsciously willing to help one another through their greed and obsession for wealth, thus leading to some utopia in which everyone has a job with a good wage (yeah, right ) to buy all the things they need at the fair price, as settled by the crossing of the curve of demand and the curve of offer...
...and they lived happily ever after...until human nature came along.
Confederate Socialist States of America wrote:Miss Defied wrote:Rated by whom? I would love to see this list.
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?The UK in Exile wrote:
what where the next four most corrupt? in order.
Mostcorrupt.com (a left-wing website) rated the EPA as one of top nine most corrupt agencies in the country following...
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Forest Service
Health Resources and Services Administration
Department of Homeland Security
Interior Department
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
You can get the full list here.
http://www.mostcorrupt.com/Most-Corrupt-Agencies.htm
AuSable River wrote:wrong
government is a self-serving scheme that benefits politicians, bureaucrats, and their cronies in the private and public sector in a quid pro quo scheme of preferential tax and regulatory policy in exchange for special interest votes and campaign contributions.
AuSable River wrote:hence the large number of lobbyists in washington.
AuSable River wrote:do you seriously think they are lobbying washington with hundreds of billions of dollars in order to help society ????!!!!
New Cassel wrote:AuSable River wrote: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.
Oh hey there Truth to Power! You should go back to trolling Thom Harmanns website. I see you haven't been able to develop your argument!
Miss Defied wrote:AuSable River wrote:snip
Awwwww, we sure have missed you!
Incidentally, it was so weird that you stayed away from is thread for a few days. Especially after some people made some fairly strong posts against your case. So just in case you missed them, I'm going to put them here so you can read them.
This one is a meticulously detailed refutation of your silly little FDA is the biggest accidental murderer story. I honestly can't believe Neo Art took the time to compose it because arguing with you is like isometric exercise. It's one little thing but what is shows is how you make claims about things that are very clearly just regurgitations of crap you've heard elsewhere. You think you can come here and parrot these wild assertions that are without merit.Neo Art wrote:
If you are going to only read one of these please let this be the one. It is a very earnest detailing of your failings in the realm of logic and rhetoric. Really, it will do you well to read this and take it to heart.The Terragon Isles wrote:
Another good example of someone blowing open the wide gaping holes in everything you say. It is full of facts, logic and empirical evidence which I know you love because you reference them in about one-third of your posts. The problem is all you do is blurt out a series of non-sequiturs. It is a very good rebuttal that any reasonable person cannot dismiss. (BTW that is the word you are looking for-rebuttal-it's a noun. Rebut is the verb form but you keep using it as a noun.)Socialdemokraterne wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:AuSable River wrote:wrong
government is a self-serving scheme that benefits politicians, bureaucrats, and their cronies in the private and public sector in a quid pro quo scheme of preferential tax and regulatory policy in exchange for special interest votes and campaign contributions.
Businesses are self-serving entities that benefit CEOs and chairmen of said businesses, and their cronies who crush competition thanks to limited government power.AuSable River wrote:hence the large number of lobbyists in washington.
What? It's not due to the government, it's due to capitalism and a stupid populace.AuSable River wrote:do you seriously think they are lobbying washington with hundreds of billions of dollars in order to help society ????!!!!
Of course not, they are products of capitalism.
AuSable River wrote:Mavorpen wrote:
Businesses are self-serving entities that benefit CEOs and chairmen of said businesses, and their cronies who crush competition thanks to limited government power.
What? It's not due to the government, it's due to capitalism and a stupid populace.
Of course not, they are products of capitalism.
for the rest of you, it has been fun, good night.
government is a self-serving scheme that benefits politicians, bureaucrats, and their cronies in the private and public sector in a quid pro quo scheme of preferential tax and regulatory policy in exchange for special interest votes and campaign contributions.
hence the large number of lobbyists in washington.
do you seriously think they are lobbying washington with hundreds of billions of dollars in order to help society ????!!!!
naive = statist on the outside.
corrupt = statist on the inside
poor = statist on the outside
privledged = statist on the inside.
Wirbel wrote:The solution is to allow the contributors to benefit and the ones who do not wish to contribute to miss out.
Liriena wrote:Allow me to explain what I would rather entrust to the Free Market, and what I would rather entrust to the State (provided the State's anti-corruption systems are efficient to deal with individual cases of corruption in the system).
Education? State.
Healthcare? State.
Transport? State.
Water supply? State.
Energy supply? State.
Basic housing, food, clothing and other such products for people utterly incapable of purchasing by themselves, and only provided temporarily until said people begin to prosper? State (BTW: the key word is "basic", basic as in "generic" and rather low-quality. For anything better, work is the solution)
Everything else? Free Market! Yay!
If I remember anything else, I'll let you know.
Wirbel wrote:The solution is to allow the contributors to benefit and the ones who do not wish to contribute to miss out.
Silent Majority wrote:Wirbel wrote:The solution is to allow the contributors to benefit and the ones who do not wish to contribute to miss out.
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.
Silent Majority wrote:Wirbel wrote:The solution is to allow the contributors to benefit and the ones who do not wish to contribute to miss out.
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.
Wirbel wrote:Silent Majority wrote:
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.
Incentive: You get protected from massive enemy nation
Wirbel wrote:Silent Majority wrote:
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.
Poor people can contribute. Some of them are only poor because they don't wish to contribute.
Wirbel wrote:Silent Majority wrote:
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.
Poor people can contribute. Some of them are only poor because they don't wish to contribute.