|
Post by millring on Sept 12, 2011 17:24:41 GMT -5
There is an interesting new book out called "Declaration of Independents" that posits a dramatic libertarian swing in the near future. "Democrat" and "Republican" are dying brands. <Democratic> (and, yes I think Republican is a dying brand -- in large part due to the Bush years. But, no, I don't think Democratic is. I think Democratic is going to win out and become overwhelmingly dominant.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Sept 12, 2011 19:09:08 GMT -5
The American conservative movement that has preached "small government" for going on four decades now has only made government bigger when they were in charge of it. Even if I believed smaller, not better government was a solution to anything (which is a fundamentally stupid thing to believe), why would I believe them? Tim I have to agree with you Tim. I think I said that earlier. "All Republicans since Ronnie Rayguns have just been Democrats."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2011 20:35:14 GMT -5
I don't know what is meant by "European style socialism". I know that many people have a weird visceral reaction at the mention of the dreaded "S" word but I can't think of a particular European "style". We got all sorts over here. It's not such a dirty word. Unfettered "free market capitalism" makes many of us shudder a bit though.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Sept 12, 2011 20:45:47 GMT -5
I don't know what is meant by "European style socialism". I know that many people have a weird visceral reaction at the mention of the dreaded "S" word but I can't think of a particular European "style". We got all sorts over here. It's not such a dirty word. Unfettered "free market capitalism" makes many of us shudder a bit though. Socialism is just another form of slavery.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Sept 12, 2011 20:50:12 GMT -5
The American conservative movement that has preached "small government" for going on four decades now has only made government bigger when they were in charge of it. Even if I believed smaller, not better government was a solution to anything (which is a fundamentally stupid thing to believe), why would I believe them? Tim I don't think you really do agree. My point is that Bush 1 grew the government, Reagan grew the government. Ford, Nixon, Eisenhower... The point I didn't make but I'll make it now, is that Ronald Reagan was a moderate by today's Republican standard, and Eisenhower was a Democrat. Based their records neither of them could win the Republican nomination today. Reagan was much more Mitt Romney than Rick Perry. And conservative? I kinda liked conservatives. They were measured, reasonable men and women, even progressives could work with to get things done in this country. I wish we had a few more of them. What we have, instead, are right-wing radicals. They don't want to move forward very deliberately and cautiously; they don't even want to hold onto the status quo. They want to dismantle America and sell it off piece by piece. They are not conservative. I sure can't argue with that. The Founder's probably didn't envision the Pony Express, much less the transcontinental railway and the interstate highway system. If we'd only stuck to what the founders envisioned and not done all this damned progress, that'd be great. We'd be a great big third world nation with no debt. Tim
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Sept 12, 2011 20:50:47 GMT -5
"Unfettered 'free market capitalism' makes many of us shudder a bit though." And many of us, as it made many of our ancestors shudder, going back to the 17th century.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Sept 12, 2011 20:51:37 GMT -5
The American conservative movement that has preached "small government" for going on four decades now has only made government bigger when they were in charge of it. Even if I believed smaller, not better government was a solution to anything (which is a fundamentally stupid thing to believe), why would I believe them? Tim I have to agree with you Tim. I think I said that earlier. "All Republicans since Ronnie Rayguns have just been Democrats." Reagan is the last president who bailed out Social Security. Socialist. Tim
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Sept 12, 2011 23:10:11 GMT -5
Ok don't call it socialism call it slavery. A system which uses force to take an individual's property or labor against his will.
|
|
|
Post by frazer on Sept 13, 2011 2:09:05 GMT -5
I don't know what is meant by "European style socialism". I know that many people have a weird visceral reaction at the mention of the dreaded "S" word but I can't think of a particular European "style". We got all sorts over here. It's not such a dirty word. Unfettered "free market capitalism" makes many of us shudder a bit though. Yes. The 's' word seems to have a meaning for many Americans (and I spent three years in the States) that is simply not shared by ANYONE I know in Europe. It's interesting. And now our beloved Tory govt seems to be lurching towards the 'ufmc' word in a way that makes me shudder for the survival of many of the state-supported institutions that I took for granted when I was growing up (and which I am happy to support through my taxes), like the NHS. But that's another story... James, we must get together at some point for a Britjam!
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Sept 13, 2011 4:10:34 GMT -5
But you had no choice, and if even one person wasn't happy then it's slavery.
|
|
|
Post by frazer on Sept 13, 2011 5:13:26 GMT -5
But you had no choice, and if even one person wasn't happy then it's slavery. Well I suppose I'm unable to see it in such clear and absolute terms, Doug. I'm prepared to pay for services that help my fellow citizens, even if they don't benefit me personally (although I'd very glad they're there for me when I do need them). That IS my choice. I just think it's the right thing to do - it doesn't matter to me what name you give it. Just my 'pinion...
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 13, 2011 5:22:46 GMT -5
I don't think the harm is so much in the fact that we can vote ourselves -- depending on your perspective: 1. a more civilized society, or 2. stuff we want. The problem is that we were/are able to do so without any visible means of paying for it....and then we have the audacity to proudly pat ourselves on the back for our moral superiority and civility. We enslaved ourselves to a debt we cannot pay, all in the name of the best of intentions.
If we had never paid for all these things on credit, but rather, had the real knockdown drag-out fight over paying for them as we voted them for ourselves, we could then be proud instead of ensnared.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Sept 13, 2011 5:23:33 GMT -5
It's fine that you are. But are you prepared to use force to make someone else. Is it ever ok to use force to steal from someone? There just isn't any middle ground. Either it's ok to rob people if you have enough force (government or organized crime protection rackets) or it's not.
|
|
|
Post by frazer on Sept 13, 2011 5:33:18 GMT -5
It's fine that you are. But are you prepared to use force to make someone else. Is it ever ok to use force to steal from someone? There just isn't any middle ground. Either it's ok to rob people if you have enough force (government or organized crime protection rackets) or it's not. Again, Doug, I see plenty of middle ground where you see none. I think a social support system for those who need it, funded by taxation, is a pretty good idea. You don't seem to agree, and that's fine. On the simplest level, I pay taxes voluntarily because I think it's right. You seem to think it's just wrong, so I don't suppose we'll ever see eye-to-eye on this. I would say, however, that where I come from, we think it's quite normal.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Sept 13, 2011 5:44:04 GMT -5
It's fine that you are. But are you prepared to use force to make someone else. Is it ever ok to use force to steal from someone? There just isn't any middle ground. Either it's ok to rob people if you have enough force (government or organized crime protection rackets) or it's not. Again, Doug, I see plenty of middle ground where you see none. I think a social support system for those who need it, funded by taxation, is a pretty good idea. You don't seem to agree, and that's fine. On the simplest level, I pay taxes voluntarily because I think it's right. You seem to think it's just wrong, so I don't suppose we'll ever see eye-to-eye on this. I would say, however, that where I come from, we think it's quite normal. I don't think it's wrong to pay taxes voluntarily, that's fine it's your choice. I think it wrong to use force to make people pay taxes. Is robbing people right is the question. And taking taxes involuntarily is robbing people.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Sept 13, 2011 5:47:31 GMT -5
Why limit your argument to socialism, Doug? Any government that taxes is slavery, yes? So, then, any government that exists, that does anything, is slavery. On the one hand, I have to admire your absolutism. It is pure, if absolutely unhindered by reality. On the other hand, I look at the fact that you didn't build yourself a lean-to in the woods, turn your back on the motorhome, the highways, the healthcare, the veterans benefits...and my admiration melts in the face of the understanding that it's all loose talk.
Tim
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Sept 13, 2011 5:57:12 GMT -5
But you had no choice, and if even one person wasn't happy then it's slavery. There's a fundamental difference between slavery and European or US "socialism." Slaves couldn't leave. If they did, they were brought back. Any time anyone in Europe or the US doesn't like the system the majority has set up through democratic means, they can leave. No one HAS to be subject to our "socialism." You can move to the former Soviet countries where they have pretty much dissolved their social safety net and you can enjoy truly unfettered free market capitalism, even unfettered by the obtrusive government regulation that you can't kill your competition. Or you can move to the tribal areas of Pakistan, where there is no government at all. Or there is a vast swath of jungle area in southern China to eastern Vietnam and into Laos and Cambodia where there is no government and people live without government interference. Go on. We'll miss you, but you have to follow your dharma, man.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 13, 2011 6:07:49 GMT -5
...the veterans benefits Tim I agree that Doug's view is extreme and I believe those views are also unrealistic. But I absolutely bristle at the number of times people here throw this -- his veteran's benefits -- in his face. He PAID for those benefits, god damn it. YOU didn't, and dare to throw that in his face. I almost can't believe the audacity.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Sept 13, 2011 6:10:17 GMT -5
I absolutely agree, John. The "things" you're talking about, I assume, are the things that got us into our current state of debt? The un-regulation of financial markets, 25 years of manipulation of interest rates and the housing market, the largest (and most grossly, stupidly inefficient) expansion of entitlements (Medicare), since their establishment, the cutting of income taxes, mostly at the top where they money does not flow back into stimulative spending and unnecessary wars and nation-building outside of our nation?
Or have you already forgotten the last time we weren't running a deficit, the last time a Democratic president and a conservative GOP Congress actually worked together for the good of the country?
I'm sure it is fun to blame the world's current economic crisis on all the ideological beefs that the American right has had since long before the crisis and will have long after. It is mass short-term memory loss, but it must be fun.
Tim
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Sept 13, 2011 6:14:19 GMT -5
Solyndra's product had significant advantages over other solar panels on the market, including the ones currently pouring out of China. Solyndra's panels were a flexible film that could be mounted on almost anything. Their challenge was to make their manufacturing cheap enough, and that's where getting hit with a tsunami of cheap panels from China killed them along with other US manufacturers. As far as whether the govt knew about the risk factors, apparently the govt was about as smart as Richard Branson, the Walton family, CMEA and US Venture Partners, who collectively lost far more. So it was an inferior technology. Too spendy to be useful. And who gives a shit if private investors lost money? That's how investment is supposed to work. The fact that the government pissed away public money is pretty galling. It's really shouldn't be their job.
|
|