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

[Acroticus]

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

'your full of crap' --- Dred Scott

Are you honestly telling me that Dred Scott caused slavery. Oh and by the way the Supreme Court upheld the rights of THE STATES to own slaves in that decision.

[AuSable River]

Absolutely not.

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

Because corruption is bad?

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.

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.

dude, your post makes absolutely no sense.

If you have a question because you dont understand any of my points -- then please ask.

[Acroticus]

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.

Um, are you trying to convince me that power doesn't corrupt? Or are you saying wealth isn't power? I'm a bit confused.

[Mavorpen]

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.

And the alternative are large companies taking over the state much easier because now they don't need to pay more money to get majority votes and shit. Great idea.

[Libertas Liber]

Both parties want bigger government.

Exactly. Still, why couldn't we just listen to George Washington and stay away from parties?

[Losylvania]

government is a market for corruption.

I find your choice of words here rather amusing.

[Acroticus]

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.

Ok I do not believe that the bailout was good, I believe it was NECESSARY to prevent the collapse of our economy and both parties agree on that.

And as far as "virtual wealth" goes, you relize that the dollar is backed by nothing right? It is all virtual wealth.

[Trotskylvania]

This is the very nature of government in general.

No, it is the nature of states. Societies that do not have powerful private interests don't have the same dynamics with corruption.

[Blakk Metal]

Both parties want bigger government.

Exactly. Still, why couldn't we just listen to George Washington and stay away from parties?

Because parties are inherent to representative democracy?

[Genivaria]

Both parties want bigger government.

Exactly. Still, why couldn't we just listen to George Washington and stay away from parties?

Because thats impractical.

[Blakk Metal]

This is the very nature of government in general.

No, it is the nature of states. Societies that do not have powerful private interests don't have the same dynamics with corruption.

You do realize workers' states are one of the most corrupt states, right?

[AuSable River]

'your full of crap' --- Dred Scott

Are you honestly telling me that Dred Scott caused slavery. Oh and by the way the Supreme Court upheld the rights of THE STATES to own slaves in that decision.

what a state government is not a 'government' ??!!!

and the federal government re-affirming the right of a state government to retain its people as property is not an example of government supporting slavery ??!!

How about this one for you --- note that there were/are absolutely NO corporations or that corporate power is severely limited in these nations -- yet their people are enslaved, tortured and murdered by government by the tens of millions:

soviet union
communist china pre-1980
north korea
cuba
zimbabwe
cambodia (pol pot)


the list goes on and on.......

yet these liberals will bark incessantly that government is good and corporations are the source of evil in the world. Yet for every indiscretion that a corporation or private citizens has committed --- whether slavery, unprovoked war, genocide, et al -- government was the culprit and by far the worse offender in size and scope than any private entity whether corporation, firm, industry, or private citizen.

[Acroticus]

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.

Yes and millions more people would die each year in the US and abroad if the federal spending level was drastically reduced, don't forget that. Without the money they would be as unable to build as they are unable to destroy. Let's not forget; the government brought us the internet, digital technology, the cure for many diseases, and much more all as a result of government spending.

[AuSable River]

No, it is the nature of states. Societies that do not have powerful private interests don't have the same dynamics with corruption.

You do realize workers' states are one of the most corrupt states, right?

funny, while I was responded to a previous post I offered the same sentiment as yours without reading your post.

Brilliant minds think alike.

at least sometimes.

[Acroticus]

Are you honestly telling me that Dred Scott caused slavery. Oh and by the way the Supreme Court upheld the rights of THE STATES to own slaves in that decision.

what a state government is not a 'government' ??!!!

and the federal government re-affirming the right of a state government to retain its people as property is not an example of government supporting slavery ??!!

How about this one for you --- note that there were/are absolutely NO corporations or that corporate power is severely limited in these nations -- yet their people are enslaved, tortured and murdered by government by the tens of millions:

soviet union
communist china pre-1980
north korea
cuba
zimbabwe
cambodia (pol pot)


the list goes on and on.......

yet these liberals will bark incessantly that government is good and corporations are the source of evil in the world. Yet for every indiscretion that a corporation or private citizens has committed --- whether slavery, unprovoked war, genocide, et al -- government was the culprit and by far the worse offender in size and scope than any private entity whether corporation, firm, industry, or private citizen.

Ok you are quite confused. In a Socialist society, the government is the corporation. Slash all of the socialists off the list and you are down to.... African countries.

[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.

And the alternative are large companies taking over the state much easier because now they don't need to pay more money to get majority votes and shit. Great idea.

It would be better if large corporations were dissolved altogether and we returned to a distributist system.

[Silent Majority]

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

1. If there is a monopoly, especially if that monopoly covers an essential service, then it would not be voluntary as you would have no choice but to buy from that company

2. Boycotts are ineffective and boycotting the provider of an essential service, especially if there is a monopoly of said service, would for all practical purposes be impossible.

3. I would argue that that is what elections are for. If someone is failing at their job as a public official, they can be replaced.

4. In an authoritarian or otherwise oppressive government sure, but we don't have an authoritarian government. With some exceptions, civil liberties are generally respected.

5. Brute physical force is not the only source of power. Wealth is power.

Without government intervention in the economy, corporations would be free to trash the rights of their employees, produce unsafe products, and monopolies would almost certainly form due to the lack of antitrust laws.

So yes no one would try to buy our government anymore, but only because our government would be useless.

[Vrakon]

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

1. Finland is usually not considered part of scandinavia
2. GDP/c is affected by billions of things other than the government, and when you consider the fact that they've been involved in drawn out wars with one of the strongest (militarily) superpowers on earth, it's amazing that it's as high as it is
3. If you look at countries generally accepted as part of scandinavia with relatively peaceful histories, like Norway, which has twice as much gdp/c as America
4. GDP/c is not a good indicator of how good a country is.

[Trotskylvania]

No, it is the nature of states. Societies that do not have powerful private interests don't have the same dynamics with corruption.

You do realize workers' states are one of the most corrupt states, right?

So-called workers' states didn't do much for workers, and in general workers were a tiny minority in their societies.

A proper workers' state exists only to suppress counterrevolution and the reinstitution of reactionary social relations. It's also constantly being eroded by workers' power from below.

[Libertas Liber]

Exactly. Still, why couldn't we just listen to George Washington and stay away from parties?

Because parties are inherent to representative democracy?

Why are they necessary? Why must congressmen be divided into two parties? There are very few independent/other-party congressmen and it seems to get us no where because of their party.

[AuSable River]

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.

Yes and millions more people would die each year in the US and abroad if the federal spending level was drastically reduced, don't forget that. Without the money they would be as unable to build as they are unable to destroy. Let's not forget; the government brought us the internet, digital technology, the cure for many diseases, and much more all as a result of government spending.

ridiculous

most of the money is wasted anyway.

most of it goes to special interests or

it is manufactured out of thin air by fractional reserve banks or the Fed.

[Mavorpen]

It would be better if large corporations were dissolved altogether and we returned to a distributist system.

And the federal government can't do this?

[Acroticus]

Yes and millions more people would die each year in the US and abroad if the federal spending level was drastically reduced, don't forget that. Without the money they would be as unable to build as they are unable to destroy. Let's not forget; the government brought us the internet, digital technology, the cure for many diseases, and much more all as a result of government spending.

ridiculous

most of the money is wasted anyway.

most of it goes to special interests or

it is manufactured out of thin air by fractional reserve banks or the Fed.

Again young confused one, you are as brainwashed as all who watch fox news. When the governemnt spends money it does not simply disappear. Also the percentage of money that goes to special interest is relatively small (not counting wars or the people as special interest groups.)

And not rediculous... fact: NASA created digital technology
Fact: government funded research developed the internet into what we use today.
Fact: because of US aid, the percentage of people with AIds in Africa is ever lower.

And also, "most" is the wrong word. The correct word would be "one-fourth" I believe, referring to the borrowed money from the FED. Someone check me on the numbers.

[Acroticus]

Because parties are inherent to representative democracy?

Why are they necessary? Why must congressmen be divided into two parties? There are very few independent/other-party congressmen and it seems to get us no where because of their party.

George Washington didn't listen to George Washington. He joined the Federalist Party.

[Acroticus]

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

1. If there is a monopoly, especially if that monopoly covers an essential service, then it would not be voluntary as you would have no choice but to buy from that company

2. Boycotts are ineffective and boycotting the provider of an essential service, especially if there is a monopoly of said service, would for all practical purposes be impossible.

3. I would argue that that is what elections are for. If someone is failing at their job as a public official, they can be replaced.

4. In an authoritarian or otherwise oppressive government sure, but we don't have an authoritarian government. With some exceptions, civil liberties are generally respected.

5. Brute physical force is not the only source of power. Wealth is power.

Without government intervention in the economy, corporations would be free to trash the rights of their employees, produce unsafe products, and monopolies would almost certainly form due to the lack of antitrust laws.

So yes no one would try to buy our government anymore, but only because our government would be useless.

Aha, this guy.