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

[Mavorpen]

Guys, let's face it: There's no reasoning with this OP. We might as well be speaking to a demented, potty-mouthed parrot or a disrespectful little brat.
Either way, it's useless. All we are doing is giving him the satisfaction of a response to his insulting, fallacious and dishonest bullshit.
If any of you is liberal or left-wing, the most self-respecting thing to do is get out of this thread, ignore him, and let him wallow in his delusional filth.

*shrug* I'm probably done after this last post.



This is the Milankovitch Cycle. It happens every 100.000 or so years. Notices the OP's graph above shows heating at about every 100,000 years roughly. Hilariously enough,the Milankovitch Cycle causing warming isn't happening now. OP fails yet again.

[Yuktova]

Guys, let's face it: There's no reasoning with this OP. We might as well be speaking to a demented, potty-mouthed parrot or a disrespectful little brat.
Either way, it's useless. All we are doing is giving him the satisfaction of a response to his insulting, fallacious and dishonest bullshit.
If any of you is liberal or left-wing, the most self-respecting thing to do is get out of this thread, ignore him, and let him wallow in his delusional filth.

Amen to that.

Neurally bankrupt people can only become more bankrupt by false life philosophy's unconnected to reality.

[Priory Academy USSR]

Guys, let's face it: There's no reasoning with this OP. We might as well be speaking to a demented, potty-mouthed parrot or a disrespectful little brat.
Either way, it's useless. All we are doing is giving him the satisfaction of a response to his insulting, fallacious and dishonest bullshit.
If any of you is liberal or left-wing, the most self-respecting thing to do is get out of this thread, ignore him, and let him wallow in his delusional filth.

The most far right wingers are the best, in my liberal/socialist opinion.

[Geilinor]

Since the EPA was created, rivers seldom burst into flames and it has saved us trillions of dollars and saved thousands of lives.

grand naivete

the EPA tells mavoren that empowering it with greater regulatory authority and billions in funding will 'save lives'

and he believes it ??!!!

this is the definition of a good liberal.

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.

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.

Labeling all your opponents as "good little liberals" is just stupid. In your brainwashed mind, liberal is an insult and you call every source that disagrees with you "liberal". You parrot your propaganda like a "good little conservative". In your mind all government is corrupt and evil, even when it is possible to build a government fairly free of corruption.

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

The current system of healthcare in America certainly hasn't worked, with 17% of people uninsured and it costing almost double what it should, in comparison to comparable nations.

the EPA tells mavoren that empowering it with greater regulatory authority and billions in funding will 'save lives'

and he believes it ??!!!

Corporations often know about dangerous conditions and chemicals, yet they continue to send workers there without regulations. Take Chinese factories, factories during the Industrial Revolution, and mining.

[Trotskylvania]

NOte the illogic in this kind of policy that is frequently practiced by leftists/statists/socialists et al.

I am not convinced you know what the word "logic" means, given your posting history.

1) a system heavily regulated by government encourages malinvestment by crony capitalist enterprises. (and dont tell me that finance was NOT heavily regulated when indeed government bailed it out -- hence government doesn't bail out unregulated industries)

Amusingly, the leftists on this thread are actually arguing that sweden did not have a strong regulatory regime in finance prior to the 1990s ??!!!

On the contrary, it was Yandere who made the suggestion that there hadn't been a strong regulatory regime before. But if you want to look at the actual facts, Sweden had been liberalizing its financial sectors since the 1970s.

Like our current crisis, the Swedish crisis had been caused by a combination of irrational overinvestment combined with declining rates of profit, leading to a bust in the business cycle, and then an inability by capital, particualarly financial capital, to meet its balance of payments. These are factors entirely independent of government regulation, which can only serve to mitigate them.

They didn't bail these people out. The government punished the shareholders under it's restructuring plans while nationalizing certain banks.

2) the moral hazard created by heavily regulating an industry finally culminates in a bubble and collapse.

Market failure is an inherent capacity of any market. Regulations mitigate, not encourage market failure.

3) government does what it does best --- now wait for this --- it bails out (rewards) the failed, greedy, and reckless firms (many who regularly break bread with these very same politicians) with Main Street wealth -- chasing good money after bad. Essentially, this illogical scheme necessitates government subsidizing an industry and its participants who are abject failures (albeit generous campaign contributors).

The Swedish banks were pretty heavily chastized by the Swedish government's restructuring plan. Their large shareholder found the values of their assets decimated by the process.

IN contrast, the free market would have punished and ejected the bad actors thereby allowing the entry and capital accumulation of more efficient, less greedy, and reckless actors in the economy.

No, a free market approach would have led to the collapse of the entire financial sector, and the resulting credit crunch would mean an economic depression and deflationary collapse of the economy. Credit crunchs punish everyone, not just those engaging in what hindsight reveals to be unwarranted risks. There is literally nothing that can be done to prevent the socialization of risk in finances, and quite to the contrary to what you suggest, the absence of economic regulation in lending and finance would lead to the most acute problem of socialized risk.

Hence, creative destruction. without it -- most likely liberals and other crony capitalists would still be subsidizing the horse and buggy provided those in this industry provided sufficient bribe money by lobbyists to politicians to protect them from competition by the combustion engine.

Just like those current liberals, who lobby for spurring investment in new technologies that, when they mature, will bankrupt some very powerful existing markets?

It's one or the other, not both.

Indeed, see how backward the technology in governments that are heavily involved in the economy compared with those that are less involved -- -North Korea -- South Korea, china -- taiwan, chile -- venezuela, the USA ---canada, california -- texas, et al.

South Korea heavily finances research and development, and indeed, the state owns several massive industries, including energy production, utilities and the like.

Both China and Taiwan have engaged in heavy state subsidy of domestic industry, particularly in encouraging the adoption of new technology. Since 1978, both have had more or less identical macroeconomic policies.

As for Chile, they're a rentier state that depends upon the export of copper and haven't diversified their economy much, whereas Chavez's regime has been heavily investing oil profits in native industries, resulting in Venezuela having the fasted growing manufacturing sector in South America.

California and Texas spend large amounts of their state budgets on higher education, research and economic planning. Their regulatory apparatuses are not all that different. You are tragically misinformed.

essentially, they want to butt their noses into these peaceful exchanges as a destructive, corrupt, wasteful and inefficient middle man under the guise of some public good -- like equality, envirnoment, nationalism, security, et al --- but libertarians understand that this is just a scam to gain power and privledge.

No, you really don't. Because contrary to what you believe, externalities do exist, and they lead to aggregate worse outcomes without regulation.

[Deus Est Machina]

OP should change his flag

[Keronians]

You need to stop generalising so much, and become a bit more pragmatic.

[You-Gi-Owe]

The OP

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.

IMHO, whether or not you believe my opinion is "humble", liberals are taught to value "fairness", from their various idols and peers, above logic and historical precedent. In pursuit of fairness, they can only pull the acomplished down, rather than building up the unaccomplished. Their goal, whether intentional or not, is a world where government gives no one any incentive to excell and punishes those that try to distinguish themselves above the general citizenry. Only when everyone is equally miserable will everyone be equal in their eyes.

[TomKirk]

The OP

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.

IMHO, whether or not you believe my opinion is "humble", liberals are taught to value "fairness", from their various idols and peers, above logic and historical precedent. In pursuit of fairness, they can only pull the acomplished down, rather than building up the unaccomplished. Their goal, whether intentional or not, is a world where government gives no one any incentive to excell and punishes those that try to distinguish themselves above the general citizenry. Only when everyone is equally miserable will everyone be equal in their eyes.

This actually bears no resemblance whatsoever to the belief system of anyone. That you would write such a pure example of a strawman, without any apparent sense of how silly it is, does help to clarify why you persist in making arguments that do not have the slightest chance of persuading anyone: you don't actually talk to, or listen to, any real people, only imaginary ones, and probably have made no effort to figure what anyone's actual viewpoint is for a large number of years.

[Liriena]

The OP

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.

IMHO, whether or not you believe my opinion is "humble", liberals are taught to value "fairness", from their various idols and peers, above logic and historical precedent. In pursuit of fairness, they can only pull the acomplished down, rather than building up the unaccomplished. Their goal, whether intentional or not, is a world where government gives no one any incentive to excell and punishes those that try to distinguish themselves above the general citizenry. Only when everyone is equally miserable will everyone be equal in their eyes.

That's not even close to what I believe in, you buffoon. Congratulations on being as fallacious as the OP.

[You-Gi-Owe]

The OP

IMHO, whether or not you believe my opinion is "humble", liberals are taught to value "fairness", from their various idols and peers, above logic and historical precedent. In pursuit of fairness, they can only pull the acomplished down, rather than building up the unaccomplished. Their goal, whether intentional or not, is a world where government gives no one any incentive to excell and punishes those that try to distinguish themselves above the general citizenry. Only when everyone is equally miserable will everyone be equal in their eyes.

This actually bears no resemblance whatsoever to the belief system of anyone. That you would write such a pure example of a strawman, without any apparent sense of how silly it is, does help to clarify why you persist in making arguments that do not have the slightest chance of persuading anyone: you don't actually talk to, or listen to, any real people, only imaginary ones, and probably have made no effort to figure what anyone's actual viewpoint is for a large number of years.

Do you think that any liberal would accept that description as accurate?
Of course they deny it.
They believe that when they are tearing down society that they are helping people.
If they ever awoke to the notion that there are millionaires that might deserve to be millionaires, aside from a poor illegal immigrant winning a lottery, they might commit suicide.

[Liriena]

This actually bears no resemblance whatsoever to the belief system of anyone. That you would write such a pure example of a strawman, without any apparent sense of how silly it is, does help to clarify why you persist in making arguments that do not have the slightest chance of persuading anyone: you don't actually talk to, or listen to, any real people, only imaginary ones, and probably have made no effort to figure what anyone's actual viewpoint is for a large number of years.

Do you think that any liberal would accept that description as accurate?
Of course they deny it.
They believe that when they are tearing down society that they are helping people.
If they ever awoke to the notion that there are millionaires that might deserve to be millionaires, aside from a poor illegal immigrant winning a lottery, they might commit suicide.

Yeah...no. Sorry. I must repeat: not even close.

Seriously...between you and the OP, I don't know how I'm keeping myself from going all Enrique Pinti on you.

[The UK in Exile]

This actually bears no resemblance whatsoever to the belief system of anyone. That you would write such a pure example of a strawman, without any apparent sense of how silly it is, does help to clarify why you persist in making arguments that do not have the slightest chance of persuading anyone: you don't actually talk to, or listen to, any real people, only imaginary ones, and probably have made no effort to figure what anyone's actual viewpoint is for a large number of years.

Do you think that any liberal would accept that description as accurate?
Of course they deny it.
They believe that when they are tearing down society that they are helping people.
If they ever awoke to the notion that there are millionaires that might deserve to be millionaires, aside from a poor illegal immigrant winning a lottery, they might commit suicide.

you've got a point, at least when conservatives are tearing down society, their pretty honest about the fact that they don't give a shit about helping people.

[You-Gi-Owe]

The OP

IMHO, whether or not you believe my opinion is "humble", liberals are taught to value "fairness", from their various idols and peers, above logic and historical precedent. In pursuit of fairness, they can only pull the acomplished down, rather than building up the unaccomplished. Their goal, whether intentional or not, is a world where government gives no one any incentive to excell and punishes those that try to distinguish themselves above the general citizenry. Only when everyone is equally miserable will everyone be equal in their eyes.

That's not even close to what I believe in, you buffoon. Congratulations on being as fallacious as the OP.

Enlighten me. What are your liberal beliefs? Does anyone ever deserve wealth, earned or inheirited, in your world, aside from the Kennedys?

[Liriena]

That's not even close to what I believe in, you buffoon. Congratulations on being as fallacious as the OP.

Enlighten me. What are your liberal beliefs? Does anyone ever deserve wealth, earned or inheirited, in your world, aside from the Kennedys?

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.

[The UK in Exile]

That's not even close to what I believe in, you buffoon. Congratulations on being as fallacious as the OP.

Enlighten me. What are your liberal beliefs? Does anyone ever deserve wealth, earned or inheirited, in your world, aside from the Kennedys?

how much wealth we talkin' ?

[You-Gi-Owe]

Do you think that any liberal would accept that description as accurate?
Of course they deny it.
They believe that when they are tearing down society that they are helping people.
If they ever awoke to the notion that there are millionaires that might deserve to be millionaires, aside from a poor illegal immigrant winning a lottery, they might commit suicide.

you've got a point, at least when conservatives are tearing down society, their pretty honest about the fact that they don't give a shit about helping people.

Survival of the fittest, Baby!

[Mavorpen]

Enlighten me. What are your liberal beliefs? Does anyone ever deserve wealth, earned or inheirited, in your world, aside from the Kennedys?

No, they don't. Fuck rich people, they're all assholes who don't care about people. Bill Gates? Asshole, despite donating billions to charities. They're all scumbags.

[You-Gi-Owe]

Enlighten me. What are your liberal beliefs? Does anyone ever deserve wealth, earned or inheirited, in your world, aside from the Kennedys?

how much wealth we talkin' ?

How about George Soros wealthy?

[The UK in Exile]

you've got a point, at least when conservatives are tearing down society, their pretty honest about the fact that they don't give a shit about helping people.

Survival of the fittest, Baby!

then you can't really complain when the weakest band together to steal all your money can you?

[Liriena]

you've got a point, at least when conservatives are tearing down society, their pretty honest about the fact that they don't give a shit about helping people.

Survival of the fittest, Baby!

Social darwinism? How humane.

I wonder what Jesus would have said....Oh, I remember! Jesus said that the rich should donate all their wealth to the poor, the hungry and the sick, and live a humble life...but you don't see me advocating for that.

Oh, BTW: Adam Smith, the father of free market philosophy? He was in favour of having the rich pay more taxes.

[Yuktova]

you've got a point, at least when conservatives are tearing down society, their pretty honest about the fact that they don't give a shit about helping people.

Survival of the fittest, Baby!

You do know that's a perversion of Darwin's works, and is proven to be scientifically incorrect.
A better term is "Survival of the most adaptable"
Those happen to be basically everyone in general.

[San-Silvacian]

OP should change his flag
(Image)

Most NSG Conservatives in a nutshell.

[You-Gi-Owe]

Survival of the fittest, Baby!

Social darwinism? How humane.

I wonder what Jesus would have said....Oh, I remember! Jesus said that the rich should donate all their wealth to the poor, the hungry and the sick, and live a humble life...but you don't see me advocating for that.

Oh, BTW: Adam Smith, the father of free market philosophy? He was in favour of having the rich pay more taxes.

No, Jesus said to a young man who mouthed that he wanted to follow Jesus that the young man ought to give up his wealth, but the young man couldn't bear to part with it. He gave the young man a choice.
He also said that it's easier for a camel (or rope, in some translations) to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. He didn't say it was impossible.
He also didn't agree with the apostle who thought the oil applied to Jesus' feet ought to be sold, to provide for the poor.
Can you imagine Jesus not giving up the oil on his feet for the poor?

[You-Gi-Owe]

Enlighten me. What are your liberal beliefs? Does anyone ever deserve wealth, earned or inheirited, in your world, aside from the Kennedys?

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?