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

[Alaje]

Well, it's hard to give names like Saudi Arabia or anarchy-bordering countries in Africa or countries that existed before Capitalism was a term, mainly because the term of Capitalism itself is unstable and now applied more freely than ever. My examples probably wouldn't pass as capitalist to you, so I won't bother.

no nation is strictly capitalist --- all have some level of government.

however, those with the least government interference in the economy experience far greater growth and increased standards of living than socialist or crony capitalist nations.

Those with the least government interference are crony capitalist nations.....

[Magmia]

AuSable, I'm still having a hard time understanding exactly what it is you're advocating. According to you, you're not an anarchist, but in all the posts I've seen in this thread you constantly go on about how "evil" or "corrupt" the State/Government is.

If you believe the state is so evil, what manner of social organization would you consider ideal?

Based on his flag and rhetoric, I think he might be a Libertarian. It seems many of them have the same "Government is bad, m'kay..." rhetoric as Anarchists...

[Liriena]

Well, it's hard to give names like Saudi Arabia or anarchy-bordering countries in Africa or countries that existed before Capitalism was a term, mainly because the term of Capitalism itself is unstable and now applied more freely than ever. My examples probably wouldn't pass as capitalist to you, so I won't bother.

no nation is strictly capitalist --- all have some level of government.

however, those with the least government interference in the economy experience far greater growth and increased standards of living than socialist or crony capitalist nations.

A) Source?
B) "Crony capitalist"? I can already hear you calling out "No true Scotsman" as soon as someone proves a "perfect capitalist country" that turned out to be a shithole.

[Ridicularia]

no nation is strictly capitalist --- all have some level of government.

however, those with the least government interference in the economy experience far greater growth and increased standards of living than socialist or crony capitalist nations.

Can you please just start building Rapture so I can take my boat and come visit?

[Mavorpen]

Well, it's hard to give names like Saudi Arabia or anarchy-bordering countries in Africa or countries that existed before Capitalism was a term, mainly because the term of Capitalism itself is unstable and now applied more freely than ever. My examples probably wouldn't pass as capitalist to you, so I won't bother.

no nation is strictly capitalist --- all have some level of government.

however, those with the least government interference in the economy experience far greater growth and increased standards of living than socialist or crony capitalist nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom

[United Marxist Nations]

no nation is strictly capitalist --- all have some level of government.

however, those with the least government interference in the economy experience far greater growth and increased standards of living than socialist or crony capitalist nations.

Can you please just start building Rapture so I can take my boat and come visit?

Screw Rapture, he's John Henry Eden, President of the Enclave.

[Trotskylvania]

we wouldnt need as much charity if a society was created to nurture and incentivise hard work rather than punish it.

No, hard work is not something to be aspired to. Civilization has progressed because we decided to work smart, not hard.

But you know what punishes hard work? Itself. There's nothing so soul destroying as long hours in tense conditions for low pay, with no opportunities for advancement and nothing but being despised by the people above you for doing it. That's the reality for America's workers, especially the poor.

indeed, since the Left gained control of the regulatory regime and purse strings in 2006 -- poverty is at near record levels -- despite the fact that welfare, food stamps, unemployment ins, et al have expanded significantly.

First of all, correlation does not imply causation. The reason why poverty is at the worst levels since when the Great Society programs were first introduced is because we're in the middle of a terrible economic recession. The programs themselves have not been expanded in their statutory scope, rather more people meet the means test to have access to them because unemployment is high and wages are depressed.

what statists dont understand is that if you subsidize unemployment, you get more of it --- and if you tax productive behaviors, you get less of it.

Only if you impose a cost exceeding the marginal benefit. Which is practically impossible, unless income tax is 100 percent.

but more importantly, if you surrender your freedoms and entrust self-serving politicians to force egalitarian outcomes --- all you do is empower these politicians and their cronies to loot the national cookie jar with little long term improvement in income differences or poverty.

What made you think that food stamps, welfare, etc. were in anyway egalitarian? These are crusts of bread we hand to the worst off in society so that they do not starve to death. Trying to live on these programs for any length of time would disabuse you of this ridiculous idea that it's in anyway an egalitarian outcome.

indeed, these power brokers prefer that the problem is not solved so they can justify increased power for themselves.

when has a polltician ever declined more tax payer plunder when poverty increases precisely because of their policies of rewarding unemployment ?

How about all of them? This isn't the Roman Empire, we don't have tax farmers. Politicians, particularly the elected ones, have no personal interest in how much taxes are being collected. They are paid a salary, and many of them are wealthy already. The only way that tax money is in anyway useful is the ability to spend it on things that their constituents want. And by doing what their constituents want, they can get re-elected and pursue their policy goals.

[The UK in Exile]

no nation is strictly capitalist --- all have some level of government.

however, those with the least government interference in the economy experience far greater growth and increased standards of living than socialist or crony capitalist nations.

A) Source?
B) "Crony capitalist"? I can already hear you calling out "No true Scotsman" as soon as someone proves a "perfect capitalist country" that turned out to be a shithole.

Brony capitalism would be so much cooler.

[Russograd]

Well, it's hard to give names like Saudi Arabia or anarchy-bordering countries in Africa or countries that existed before Capitalism was a term, mainly because the term of Capitalism itself is unstable and now applied more freely than ever. My examples probably wouldn't pass as capitalist to you, so I won't bother.

no nation is strictly capitalist --- all have some level of government.

however, those with the least government interference in the economy experience far greater growth and increased standards of living than socialist or crony capitalist nations.

Care to explain the success of Norway and Sweden's economy then?

[Galiantus]

AuSable, I'm still having a hard time understanding exactly what it is you're advocating. According to you, you're not an anarchist, but in all the posts I've seen in this thread you constantly go on about how "evil" or "corrupt" the State/Government is.

If you believe the state is so evil, what manner of social organization would you consider ideal?

I understand he may sound young and cocky, but I happen to agree with what he is trying to say.

Don't get me wrong: I think we need government. If we didn't have a government someone would quickly rise up and take control, and there is no guarentee he would be good.

A bit of Philosophy:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

I measure Government in a few ways, but the first yardstick I use is this one:

Anarchy -----------------------------------|-----------[]=>----------------- Despotism

This is a scale of the balance of power. Anarchy and despotism are perfect inflections of one another, because under Anarchy, everyone has the same amount of political power, and in any form of despotism or tyranny only one person has power. Now I know most people today prefer something somewhere in the middle, but the thing people disagree on is to which side of the middle they want to be on. No I am not talking about this scale:

<----Fascist--------------------------[]--------|-----------------------------------Communist---->

Because I view Fascism and Communism as very close cousins. Think of this scale like a loop: If you push through "communist" enough you will eventually reach fascist.

If you are wondering why I put the [] on the scale, that is my own perception of where we are as a society, and which direction we are headed. You could argue both ways on the Fascist/Communist scale, but I don't think anyone would disagree very much as to the Anarchy/Despotism scale.

What I think AuSable is trying to point out is that we have strayed too far towards a form of tyrrany, and that we are continuing to move in that direction. I would suggest that we think about which direction we are headed and try to find a balance.

[Alaje]

we wouldnt need as much charity if a society was created to nurture and incentivise hard work rather than punish it.

No, hard work is not something to be aspired to. Civilization has progressed because we decided to work smart, not hard.

But you know what punishes hard work? Itself. There's nothing so soul destroying as long hours in tense conditions for low pay, with no opportunities for advancement and nothing but being despised by the people above you for doing it. That's the reality for America's workers, especially the poor.

Though, I do agree with you in general, I disagree with your assertion that "hard work" is bad. I don't believe working smart and working hard are mutually exclusive. One can work hard doing something the wrong way (the dumb way) or they can work hard doing a task the right (smart or better) way.

I think it is more about not being properly compensated for ones labor that is the real issue, one can work smart, and still not recieve what they're due.

[AuSable River]

corporate profits are from government bailouts and preferential regulatory policies in many cases -- hence no need to hire more workers. Indeed, GM has taken the money that obama gave them in a quid pro quo union votes for bailouts to build and sell more cars in china than the USA . they are also trying to get approval to build a $1 billion plant in china next year.

also, the majority of US firms are concerned about the future precisely because of excessive govt control of the economy that is primarily based on political considerations rather than economic reality.

lastly, most American firms make money the old fashioned way --- they earn it by satisfying consumer preferences -- the only difference from past practices is that these firms are making more money overseas in friendly pastures than the high tax, high regulatory USA that chases away productive firms and rewards failing politically connected firms who spend money lobbying politicians in washington instead of increasing productivity.

you can stop laughing now -- it reflects more on your shortcomings than anyone else.

You know, half the time you make perfect sense, the other half your attacking of the wrong actor in the association of government corruption makes you look really stupid. I see where you are coming from, you just don't have the correct source of the corruption; it's the corporations, not government.

please explain to me how corrupt corporations gain power in the absence of preferential tax and regulatory policies provided by corrupt politicians ?

for example, if corporations are the primary source of corruption --- then why do they pay politicians ?

if corporations had the power, wouldnt it be logical that the politicians paid THEM for favors?

I am eagerly awaiting your liberal talking points and rationalizations

[United Marxist Nations]

You know, half the time you make perfect sense, the other half your attacking of the wrong actor in the association of government corruption makes you look really stupid. I see where you are coming from, you just don't have the correct source of the corruption; it's the corporations, not government.

please explain to me how corrupt corporations gain power in the absence of preferential tax and regulatory policies provided by corrupt politicians ?

for example, if corporations are the primary source of corruption --- then why do they pay politicians ?

if corporations had the power, wouldnt it be logical that the politicians paid THEM for favors?

I am eagerly awaiting your liberal talking points and rationalizations

They gain power because they have money.

[Silent Majority]

we wouldnt need as much charity if a society was created to nurture and incentivise hard work rather than punish it.

As I have said earlier, there are people who work hard their whole life, but don't get any wealthier.

indeed, since the Left gained control of the regulatory regime and purse strings in 2006 -- poverty is at near record levels -- despite the fact that welfare, food stamps, unemployment ins, et al have expanded significantly.

Because we had a severe recession. Unless you are seriously arguing that welfare spending caused the 2008 financial crisis.

what statists dont understand is that if you subsidize unemployment, you get more of it --- and if you tax productive behaviors, you get less of it.

So if people wanted to get a job, they could? Seriously, unemployment is not caused by laziness, it's caused by there not being enough jobs.

but more importantly, if you surrender your freedoms and entrust self-serving politicians to force egalitarian outcomes --- all you do is empower these politicians and their cronies to loot the national cookie jar with little long term improvement in income differences or poverty.

I fail to see how being taxed more means I'm "surrendering my freedom"

indeed, these power brokers prefer that the problem is not solved so they can justify increased power for themselves.

Please explain then, if the government can't solve poverty how would the market solve poverty? And why doesn't it solve it now?

when has a polltician ever declined more tax payer plunder when poverty increases precisely because of their policies of rewarding unemployment ?

Please list at least on legitimate source that shows a positive correlation between increased spending on the social safety net, and unemployment. Until you do that, this argument doesn't really have any merit. And hell, even if you did have a source, correlation does not imply causation, so you'd have to rule out other factors(like the financial crisis/recession).

[The UK in Exile]

You know, half the time you make perfect sense, the other half your attacking of the wrong actor in the association of government corruption makes you look really stupid. I see where you are coming from, you just don't have the correct source of the corruption; it's the corporations, not government.

please explain to me how corrupt corporations gain power in the absence of preferential tax and regulatory policies provided by corrupt politicians ?

for example, if corporations are the primary source of corruption --- then why do they pay politicians ?

if corporations had the power, wouldnt it be logical that the politicians paid THEM for favors?

I am eagerly awaiting your liberal talking points and rationalizations

corrupt corporations gain power through violence and coercion.

which is why liberals support a government monopoly on violence and coercion.

hurrah! we solved it!

[United Marxist Nations]

You know, half the time you make perfect sense, the other half your attacking of the wrong actor in the association of government corruption makes you look really stupid. I see where you are coming from, you just don't have the correct source of the corruption; it's the corporations, not government.

please explain to me how corrupt corporations gain power in the absence of preferential tax and regulatory policies provided by corrupt politicians ?

for example, if corporations are the primary source of corruption --- then why do they pay politicians ?

if corporations had the power, wouldnt it be logical that the politicians paid THEM for favors?

I am eagerly awaiting your liberal talking points and rationalizations

Also, I'm not really a liberal.

[Priory Academy USSR]

You know, half the time you make perfect sense, the other half your attacking of the wrong actor in the association of government corruption makes you look really stupid. I see where you are coming from, you just don't have the correct source of the corruption; it's the corporations, not government.

please explain to me how corrupt corporations gain power in the absence of preferential tax and regulatory policies provided by corrupt politicians ?

for example, if corporations are the primary source of corruption --- then why do they pay politicians ?

if corporations had the power, wouldnt it be logical that the politicians paid THEM for favors?

I am eagerly awaiting your liberal talking points and rationalizations

Corporations don't want any more power. At the moment, the balance is perfect for them-they can do pretty mcuh what they want, but if any major failure e.g. 2008 crisis happens, the government is big enough to be blamed as the main cause.
(I admit I'm not addressing your argument here, just your general viewpoint. I'm going to have to give up now as it's 12:30 here).

[AuSable River]

No, hard work is not something to be aspired to. Civilization has progressed because we decided to work smart, not hard.

But you know what punishes hard work? Itself. There's nothing so soul destroying as long hours in tense conditions for low pay, with no opportunities for advancement and nothing but being despised by the people above you for doing it. That's the reality for America's workers, especially the poor.

Though, I do agree with you in general, I disagree with your assertion that "hard work" is bad. I don't believe working smart and working hard are mutually exclusive. One can work hard doing something the wrong way (the dumb way) or they can work hard doing a task the right (smart or better) way.

I think it is more about not being properly compensated for ones labor that is the real issue, one can work smart, and still not recieve what they're due.

If you are concerned about downtrodden workers -- then open your own firm, compete against supposedly evil selfish owners who 'exploit' workers by giving them a paycheck via voluntary and peaceful exchange.

indeed, the greatest service anyone can provide is a sustainable job, when none were available previously by risking capital and foregoing instant gratification to build a viable business.

in sum, most people I have worked for were decent, practical, and hardworking folks who geniunely cared about they workers and paid them as much as was economically feasible to grow a company and make a sustainable profit.

in contrast, most of the Leftists I have met rarely gave to charity because they expected and lobbied for charity to be provided with other people's money against their will.

Indeed, evangelical christians are the most generous chartiable givers:

http://therooftopblog.wordpress.com/200 ... -abc-says/

[Alaje]

AuSable, I'm still having a hard time understanding exactly what it is you're advocating. According to you, you're not an anarchist, but in all the posts I've seen in this thread you constantly go on about how "evil" or "corrupt" the State/Government is.

If you believe the state is so evil, what manner of social organization would you consider ideal?

I understand he may sound young and cocky, but I happen to agree with what he is trying to say.

Don't get me wrong: I think we need government. If we didn't have a government someone would quickly rise up and take control, and there is no guarentee he would be good.

A bit of Philosophy:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

I measure Government in a few ways, but the first yardstick I use is this one:

Anarchy -----------------------------------|-----------[]=>----------------- Despotism

This is a scale of the balance of power. Anarchy and despotism are perfect inflections of one another, because under Anarchy, everyone has the same amount of political power, and in any form of despotism or tyranny only one person has power. Now I know most people today prefer something somewhere in the middle, but the thing people disagree on is to which side of the middle they want to be on. No I am not talking about this scale:

<----Fascist--------------------------[]--------|-----------------------------------Communist---->

Because I view Fascism and Communism as very close cousins. Think of this scale like a loop: If you push through "communist" enough you will eventually reach fascist.

If you are wondering why I put the [] on the scale, that is my own perception of where we are as a society, and which direction we are headed. You could argue both ways on the Fascist/Communist scale, but I don't think anyone would disagree very much as to the Anarchy/Despotism scale.

What I think AuSable is trying to point out is that we have strayed too far towards a form of tyrrany, and that we are continuing to move in that direction. I would suggest that we think about which direction we are headed and try to find a balance.

As a former Fascist, I'd say Fascism and Socialism (Syndicalism to be specific) are closely related, but definitely not Communism.

[Silent Majority]

Indeed, evangelical christians are the most generous chartiable givers:

http://therooftopblog.wordpress.com/200 ... -abc-says/

A lot of these christian charities, like the Salvation Army, give money to anti-gay causes. So I think there are perfectly valid reasons not to give to religious charities.

In addition, the right wing tends to be wealthier than the left, so of course they'll be giving more money.

[Galiantus]

I understand he may sound young and cocky, but I happen to agree with what he is trying to say.

Don't get me wrong: I think we need government. If we didn't have a government someone would quickly rise up and take control, and there is no guarentee he would be good.

A bit of Philosophy:

I measure Government in a few ways, but the first yardstick I use is this one:

Anarchy -----------------------------------|-----------[]=>----------------- Despotism

This is a scale of the balance of power. Anarchy and despotism are perfect inflections of one another, because under Anarchy, everyone has the same amount of political power, and in any form of despotism or tyranny only one person has power. Now I know most people today prefer something somewhere in the middle, but the thing people disagree on is to which side of the middle they want to be on. No I am not talking about this scale:

<----Fascist--------------------------[]--------|-----------------------------------Communist---->

Because I view Fascism and Communism as very close cousins. Think of this scale like a loop: If you push through "communist" enough you will eventually reach fascist.

If you are wondering why I put the [] on the scale, that is my own perception of where we are as a society, and which direction we are headed. You could argue both ways on the Fascist/Communist scale, but I don't think anyone would disagree very much as to the Anarchy/Despotism scale.

What I think AuSable is trying to point out is that we have strayed too far towards a form of tyrrany, and that we are continuing to move in that direction. I would suggest that we think about which direction we are headed and try to find a balance.

As a former Fascist, I'd say Fascism and Socialism (Syndicalism to be specific) are closely related, but definitely not Communism.

No other disputes?

[Galiantus]

Indeed, evangelical christians are the most generous chartiable givers:

http://therooftopblog.wordpress.com/200 ... -abc-says/

In addition, the right wing tends to be wealthier than the left, so of course they'll be giving more money.

Go find how much money Obama has raised for his caompeign. Then go find how much Romney has raised. Done.

[United Marxist Nations]

These threads grow up so fast. *cries*

[Alaje]

Though, I do agree with you in general, I disagree with your assertion that "hard work" is bad. I don't believe working smart and working hard are mutually exclusive. One can work hard doing something the wrong way (the dumb way) or they can work hard doing a task the right (smart or better) way.

I think it is more about not being properly compensated for ones labor that is the real issue, one can work smart, and still not recieve what they're due.

If you are concerned about downtrodden workers -- then open your own firm, compete against supposedly evil selfish owners who 'exploit' workers by giving them a paycheck via voluntary and peaceful exchange.

indeed, the greatest service anyone can provide is a sustainable job, when none were available previously by risking capital and foregoing instant gratification to build a viable business.

in sum, most people I have worked for were decent, practical, and hardworking folks who geniunely cared about they workers and paid them as much as was economically feasible to grow a company and make a sustainable profit.

in contrast, most of the Leftists I have met rarely gave to charity because they expected and lobbied for charity to be provided with other people's money against their will.

Indeed, evangelical christians are the most generous chartiable givers:

http://therooftopblog.wordpress.com/200 ... -abc-says/

I actually am studying for a degree in business management, and plan on using said degree as soon as possible.

I agree that providing work and a steady, reasonable income is one of the greatest services one can give to the their community. And even though the people I've worked for have been "nice", they didn't give raises ( even to the people they routinely showcase as "ideal" employees) and didn't give promotion opportunities either.

[Bottle]

Indeed, evangelical christians are the most generous chartiable givers:

http://therooftopblog.wordpress.com/200 ... -abc-says/

Well yeah, if you define giving money to a church as "charity" then religious people are probably going to be more "charitable" on average...