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

[AuSable River]

I dispute the idea that decentralizing government weakens it, as evidenced by discriminatory state laws both now and in the past. Segregation was the product of decentralized government, as are the numerous state level bans on gay marriage.

Good point. Slavery was also the result of decentralized government.

'your full of crap' --- Dred Scott

[Kvatchdom]

Liberals don't. Liberalism is a right-wing Libertarian ideology. However, American Democrats do. Just like American Republicans do. Republicans are just a bit better liars.

Anyhow, the government doesn't have to be corrupt. Under the right circumstances, it isn't corrupt at all. Countries like Finland or New Zealand could be completely rid of corruption, if not for the Right-wing governments who literally join government just to gain more money instead of wishing to change things. This is an even more of a problem in USA.

your argument is like comparing apples and oranges. You cant compare a nation of 300 million and a nation that is smaller than many states.

In order for this fallacious argument to hold any water, you have to prove that smaller government would lead to lower standards of living all other things being equal ----

and that argument doesnt hold water.

1) finland has a gdp per capita less than over 45 AMerican states !!!! --- so much for your scandanavian paradise.

2) new zealand has a gdp per capita even lower than finland.

3) thanks to a survival level economic collapse in the 1990s due to an out of control welfare state appartus --- these same scandanavian states 'got religion' and proceeded to significantly reduce govt. spending as a percentage of gdp -- the result has been an increase in growth and a more sound fiscal footing than the USA which has gone in the opposite direction since 2000.

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/01/pau ... nomic.html

Size doesn't matter in internal politics.

1) GDP does not measure success. Also, Scandinavia is no paradise. It's a right-wing hellhole.

2) Again.

3) Economic growth does not measure success of the people, but of the rich. Where's the people's welfare index? Also, Welfare State is a social democratic ideal. I don't like it at all. Scandinavian countries are crap. Just like any other rightist countries. But, our people are much better off than Americans. Our educational standard is higher than USA's, our life expectancy is higher than USA's, etc. Scandinavia sucks, but it sucks less than USA, China or Russia.

[United Marxist Nations]

AuSable, I will put this as simply as I can: gov't is corrupted by the interests of private corporations. Corporations are the source of the corruption, not government.

[AuSable River]

Absolutely not.

How does stating the fact that government is corrupt make someone an anarchist?

Indeed, government corruption and competition can be channelled into a public good ---- but try to stay on task and focus

mY point was that government is corrupt -- I provided the rationale for that truth -- and yet you cant refute it.

Instead preferring to engage in some inane diversion regarding what you incorrectly think is my ideological persuasion.

stay on task --- try to be objective and independent thinking

Anything that gives men power corrupts. Money corrupts, but you don't see people arguing for a weaker currency. Religion corrupts but you are not arguing for the end of religious institutions. But government has a built in balance against corruption: ELECTIONS. The only way for elections to fail to serve its purpose is if misinformation campaigns are plentiful.

Also you suggest right there in the title that liberals are wrong and that you believe in smaller government. You are not just calling government corrupt.

wrong --- corruption is more a function of opportunity.

For example, if a town puts all of its money in a bank and hires the town drunk to manage it without accountability--- then you will likely see your wealth diminish in short order.

IN contrast, if you decentralize power and leave it in the hands of those that earned it and those who will most benefit or suffer from its mismanagement -- then corruption is absolute.

[Mavorpen]

Size doesn't matter in internal politics.

1) GDP does not measure success. Also, Scandinavia is no paradise. It's a right-wing hellhole.

2) Again.

3) Economic growth does not measure success of the people, but of the rich. Where's the people's welfare index? Also, Welfare State is a social democratic ideal. I don't like it at all. Scandinavian countries are crap. Just like any other rightist countries. But, our people are much better off than Americans. Our educational standard is higher than USA's, our life expectancy is higher than USA's, etc. Scandinavia sucks, but it sucks less than USA, China or Russia.

Actually, GDP per capita is usually used as an indicator for standard of living.

[AuSable River]

You said you were taking questions. I still want to know what caused this need for attention that you felt it appropriate to gravedig a thread that's been dead for nearly a week.

Were you feeling lonely?

Still waiting.

I'll respond to intelligent questions that are on subject.

But yours was amusing and further proves my point that the Left has no defense or argument for self-evident truths -- hence the need to divert.

[The House of Petain]

Rome & Greece would like to have a word with you

Sorry, slavery in the US I meant, but I thought that was a given... since no one was questioning Segregation and mistaking it for apartheid.

To blame slavery on decentralization is a bit..simplistic. I suppose it's sort of true, though the Dred Scott was a response by the central/national government that greatly affected all states of the union

[Acroticus]

One of the major problems with your argument is that you don't quite understand politics. I am not saying this to sound elitist or to attack you because I am admittedly a liberal.

Politics is all about perceptions. Because of this, politicians try to show themselves often as things they are not. Provided they are not flat out lying, this is not corruption; it's just politics. Spinning facts is not corruption. Also, politicians need to raise money from people who have money, thus millionaires, corporations, and unions enter. Dealing with these groups and taking their money is still not corruption, just politics, provided they are not selling their votes. Similarly, dealing with lobbyists is not corruption. Lobbyists are a natural progression of the free market and they inform the members of the government.

So basically unless you can name certain scandals, i don't accept your conclusion that government is inherently corrupt, or at least more corrupt than any other institutions. Corporations are far more corrupt; just look at the Libor scandal that happened this past week. I will not deny there are corrupt unions as well.

Government is self serving only in that it tries to serve the people. Those who govern govern only with the consent of the governed. They cannot be elected without votes; it is logistically impossible. If you are talking about the issue of campaign contributions or other such dealings with political money that is a different argument; I would agree that wealth inherently corrupts.

I agree with the fact that because Republicans are more corrupt is not an excuse for Democrats to be corrupt.

lobbying is not a 'natural progression' of the free market.

it is an abberation of the free market more commonly referred to as crony capitalism -- and it is a cancer on society.

lastly, if corporations are 'far more corrupt' than politicians -- then why do they pay politicians ?

doesnt that indicate an obvious 'quid pro quo' arrangement ??

hence, it takes to corrupt entities in this equation:

1) one the supplier of the good (politicians giving preferential tax and regulatory favors)

2) the consumer of the the good (corporations who lobby or special interests who get favors)


Lastly, the most corrupt and destructive arrangement in our political system is the favors that older (active voting) Americans get from government in the form of social security and subsidized medical care.

Indeed, the reason why American society has seen a dramatic shift from a more equal society to income inequality is 99% because the elderly have the most benefits and net worth -- while the younger generation is continually crowded out .

Hence there is a direct correlation between wealth and age

and it doesnt take a rocket scientist to see that the trillions of dollars that go to govt sponsored health care and retirement (both bankrupt systems) take from small businesses and the young to redistribute this money to the elderly.

And you aren't governing based on consent when citizens only get to vote once every 2, 4, 0r 6 years for the lesser of two evils and once these politicians get in office the influence peddling and lobbying begins in earnest

and here is the kicker that I will put in a quote to emphasize:

If big government didnt have the ability to bail out or otherwise provide preferential tax and regulatory favors to corrupt corporations -- then 1) instead of lobbying government officials, what would these firms do with their money, 2) what would have happened to the wall street firms that got bailed out, and 3) how would these corrupt corporations 'game' the system in the absence of a government partner.

I doubt you have ever pondered these questions seriously --- do it now.

Ok, corporations are allowed to spend their money as they wish (Freedom of Speech and all). Secondly, an unregulated Free Market naturally leads to things like Lobbying which actually hurts society (check out the Trusts of the Gilded Age) and that is one good argument for a big government.

All these programs that help the poor, old, and disabled are there for mutual benefit as well, not simply voting purposes. But again, that is politics. You seem to be firmly against democracy because Democracy produces all these things that you hate. Elected officials bend to the will of the public and hope that in turn the public push them to do good things. Still not quite understanding...

And also, you seem to miss how Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare helped everyone.

ANd about your quote, without a government to lobby, the businesses would takeover: what's there to stop them? Trusts could force peopel to buy their products, then live on their land and pay for their security officers and so on. Farmers would become sharecroppers on the land belonging to corporations.

Not to mention if the banks had not been bailed out, I would not have the money to go to college not to mention pay for gas.

I have thought of these questions... have you?

[United Marxist Nations]

If there were not government, the largest corporations would be a quasi-government.

[Patriqvinia]

So you are an anarchist, right?

Absolutely not.

How does stating the fact that government is corrupt make someone an anarchist?

Indeed, government corruption and competition can be channelled into a public good ---- but try to stay on task and focus

mY point was that government is corrupt -- I provided the rationale for that truth -- and yet you cant refute it.

Instead preferring to engage in some inane diversion regarding what you incorrectly think is my ideological persuasion.

stay on task --- try to be objective and independent thinking

You should become an anarchist. Maybe it's just me, but I often find the classic "small government" advocates aren't typically ideologically consistent; government seems to be an inherently corrupt institution.

[Acroticus]

Sorry, slavery in the US I meant, but I thought that was a given... since no one was questioning Segregation and mistaking it for apartheid.

To blame slavery on decentralization is a bit..simplistic. I suppose it's sort of true, though the Dred Scott was a response by the central/national government that greatly affected all states of the union

Well when the US was created, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention decided to allow the states to decide about slavery and such. As things got worse, the federal government became more and more involved.

[Acroticus]

Absolutely not.

How does stating the fact that government is corrupt make someone an anarchist?

Indeed, government corruption and competition can be channelled into a public good ---- but try to stay on task and focus

mY point was that government is corrupt -- I provided the rationale for that truth -- and yet you cant refute it.

Instead preferring to engage in some inane diversion regarding what you incorrectly think is my ideological persuasion.

stay on task --- try to be objective and independent thinking

You should become an anarchist. Maybe it's just me, but I often find the classic "small government" advocates aren't typically ideologically consistent; government seems to be an inherently corrupt institution.

I agree, although anarchism is not effective and is very primative.

[The House of Petain]

To blame slavery on decentralization is a bit..simplistic. I suppose it's sort of true, though the Dred Scott was a response by the central/national government that greatly affected all states of the union

Well when the US was created, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention decided to allow the states to decide about slavery and such. As things got worse, the federal government became more and more involved.

Er, yes, and your assumption that more centralized control of the issues means less slavery was false, at least prior to the civil war. Dred Scott was a court decision, delivered by the national supreme court, which struck down the Missouri Compromise, reaffirmed that slaves were not people and therefore not entitled to the same protections as citizens, and that escaped slaves which got to a free state were to be returned to their "owners."

More centralization does not always mean better things.

[Patriqvinia]

You should become an anarchist. Maybe it's just me, but I often find the classic "small government" advocates aren't typically ideologically consistent; government seems to be an inherently corrupt institution.

I agree, although anarchism is not effective and is very primative.

Really? What anarchists have you read?

[Trotskylvania]

The biggest mistake the OP makes is calling any of what he cites as examples of malfeasance in the OP "corruption". Corruption would imply that it was somehow a perversion of the institutional values of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. No, rather this the very nature of government under capitalism.

[Dainer]

Newsflash: conservatives want bigger government as well, just for different things (like military and snooping on people's bedrooms)

[Helcasia]

Does the OP even know what liberalism is?

[The House of Petain]

Newsflash: conservatives want bigger government as well, just for different things (like military and snooping on people's bedrooms)

Actually, the scary thing is that both parties in the US wants big government for similar things: Military, invasion of privacy, supporting strong "national security" actions and legislations. Where the two parties differ, is one favors freedom of the person on social issues while the other favors freedom of the person in economics.

Then again, nothing is that black and white.

[Silent Majority]

Good point. Slavery was also the result of decentralized government.

'your full of crap' --- Dred Scott

No one is saying that the federal government is infallible, just that decentralizing it doesn't solve anything. Back to the context of the OP, If macroeconomic policy were delegated to the states, the lobbyists would simply shift their efforts there.

[AuSable River]

lobbying is not a 'natural progression' of the free market.

it is an abberation of the free market more commonly referred to as crony capitalism -- and it is a cancer on society.

lastly, if corporations are 'far more corrupt' than politicians -- then why do they pay politicians ?

doesnt that indicate an obvious 'quid pro quo' arrangement ??

hence, it takes to corrupt entities in this equation:

1) one the supplier of the good (politicians giving preferential tax and regulatory favors)

2) the consumer of the the good (corporations who lobby or special interests who get favors)


Lastly, the most corrupt and destructive arrangement in our political system is the favors that older (active voting) Americans get from government in the form of social security and subsidized medical care.

Indeed, the reason why American society has seen a dramatic shift from a more equal society to income inequality is 99% because the elderly have the most benefits and net worth -- while the younger generation is continually crowded out .

Hence there is a direct correlation between wealth and age

and it doesnt take a rocket scientist to see that the trillions of dollars that go to govt sponsored health care and retirement (both bankrupt systems) take from small businesses and the young to redistribute this money to the elderly.

And you aren't governing based on consent when citizens only get to vote once every 2, 4, 0r 6 years for the lesser of two evils and once these politicians get in office the influence peddling and lobbying begins in earnest

and here is the kicker that I will put in a quote to emphasize:




I doubt you have ever pondered these questions seriously --- do it now.

Ok, corporations are allowed to spend their money as they wish (Freedom of Speech and all). Secondly, an unregulated Free Market naturally leads to things like Lobbying which actually hurts society (check out the Trusts of the Gilded Age) and that is one good argument for a big government.

All these programs that help the poor, old, and disabled are there for mutual benefit as well, not simply voting purposes. But again, that is politics. You seem to be firmly against democracy because Democracy produces all these things that you hate. Elected officials bend to the will of the public and hope that in turn the public push them to do good things. Still not quite understanding...

And also, you seem to miss how Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare helped everyone.

ANd about your quote, without a government to lobby, the businesses would takeover: what's there to stop them? Trusts could force peopel to buy their products, then live on their land and pay for their security officers and so on. Farmers would become sharecroppers on the land belonging to corporations.

Not to mention if the banks had not been bailed out, I would not have the money to go to college not to mention pay for gas.

I have thought of these questions... have you?

DUde, who and where are corrupt corporations and special interests going to lobby or go if government was prevented by the Constitution from picking winners and losers via preferential tax and regulatory policy?????

And you seriously believe that bailing out failing, corrupt, greedy banks that made incorrect and reckless decisions so they could buy more political power and give themselves raises is a good allocation of societal resources ???

hence, these politicians and bankers lost 'virtual wealth' that was created in a shadow market place devoid of any real productive or substantive resources.

It was simply created out of thin air by fractional reserve banking or the govt printing office without any backing to any substantive or material resource or capital.

And it was lost just as easily as it was created by the same same gambling and reckless elites.

and it was replaced by the same cancerous financial and political mechanism that created it in the first place -- by the very same corrupt and failed actors

ANd you support and trust this system?

In sum, your education was not funded by an accounting entry in some big banks books or by the FED reserve instantly creating billions of dollars without any substantive backing to that monopoly money -- it can only be funded by one of two things

1) increased productivity in the economy

2) increased growth.

And you dont get either by printing money to bail out failed firms whose members coincidently break bread on a regular basis with the political actors who bailed them out. Indeed, they are one in the same.

[AuSable River]

'your full of crap' --- Dred Scott

No one is saying that the federal government is infallible, just that decentralizing it doesn't solve anything. Back to the context of the OP, If macroeconomic policy were delegated to the states, the lobbyists would simply shift their efforts there.

Nothing is infallible -- least of all the free market.

the big difference is that

1) the free market is voluntary and free

2)competition always exists in the free market even when a firm gains temporary monopoly status because a competitor can emerge relatively quickly, substitution goods exists, or boycotts can be used to punish an offending monopoly

3) govt has no competition even when it fails

4) if govt, is challenged for corruption -- they throw you in jail or worse.

5) corporations dont have guns and they wouldnt have any power if government didnt have power to bail them out -- instead of wasting billions lobbying politicians for political favors --= they would spend that money on improving their products, hiring more workers, or increasing productivity.

Essentially govt destroys societal living standards by diverting (by coercive means) societal wealth from economically sustainable uses to politically corrupt and unsustainable uses.

hence, we are $100 trillion in unfunded debt that is a survival level threat to the nation

[AuSable River]

Newsflash: conservatives want bigger government as well, just for different things (like military and snooping on people's bedrooms)

Actually, the scary thing is that both parties in the US wants big government for similar things: Military, invasion of privacy, supporting strong "national security" actions and legislations. Where the two parties differ, is one favors freedom of the person on social issues while the other favors freedom of the person in economics.

Then again, nothing is that black and white.

Yeah it is black and white

both parties would be powerless to corrupt, waste, and destroy --- if government power at the federal level was significantly reduced.

[Blakk Metal]

So you are an anarchist, right?

Absolutely not.

How does stating the fact that government is corrupt make someone an anarchist?

Because corruption is bad?

If I could deprogram leftists

Here's your first problem: you think liberals are somehow leftist.

They're not.

At best, they're right-wingers who are smart enough to recognize that they need to soften the status quo if they want to retain the fundamental injustices on which their position depends.

No self-respecting leftist has any love for government.

Sigged. Again.

AuSable, I will put this as simply as I can: gov't is corrupted by the interests of private corporations. Corporations are the source of the corruption, not government.

Government is inherently corrupt.

If there were not government, the largest corporations would be a quasi-government.

You should become an anarchist. Maybe it's just me, but I often find the classic "small government" advocates aren't typically ideologically consistent; government seems to be an inherently corrupt institution.

I agree, although anarchism is not effective and is very primative.

Us anarchists would like to have a word with you.

The biggest mistake the OP makes is calling any of what he cites as examples of malfeasance in the OP "corruption". Corruption would imply that it was somehow a perversion of the institutional values of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. No, rather this the very nature of government under capitalism.

This is the very nature of government in general.

[AuSable River]

Newsflash: conservatives want bigger government as well, just for different things (like military and snooping on people's bedrooms)

News flash --- OP knows this and as reiterated it ad nauseam

hence, the oft used and tired lame argument from the progressives that

'conservatives, republicans, neocons, et al are corrupt --- so you cant criticize liberal corruption '

get a new argument -- that dog doesnt bark anymore.

[Nidaria]

Both parties want bigger government. Republicans claim to support small government but do nothing to reduce it. Democrats directly support big government in all fields. Only libertarians actually try to shrink the government. Not only does the government sponge off the wealth of the nation, but it imposes inefficient and authoritarian regulations. The federal government should be cut down to the minimum, and ruling left to state and local governments. Most liberals support big government because they think that more regulations will minimize corruption. What they do not realize is that if the corporations already control the government, only policies favorable to them will be passed, often to the expense of the people.