I'm getting real tired with the extreme individualism. [Archive]

a completely inoffensive name

04-20-2013, 06:31

Do people even know what it is means to be free? Sometimes I think that basic parenting 101 should include asking your kids to think about what it means to be free. If you have no idea what it is other than a dictionary definition how can you spot it in real life? How can you distinguish it between privilege?

So let me back up and talk about why I am writing this. So a week or so ago, Obama came out talking about a new tax on cigarettes which was pretty hefty. Oh well, pile it on top of all the other taxes. I didn't really pay any attention. That is until some of my friends who smoke on facebook started bitching about it. I get it, they don't like being "punished" for their chosen vice. They say it is unfair, and maybe it is. The point I want to make is that it really rustles my jimmies when you start spouting this "GOVERNMENT TELLING ME WHAT I CAN DO WITH MY BODY" nonsense. And this argument has its permutations across almost every issue big and small. It's this new extreme individualism that people seem to think is the end goal of society.

According to a lot of people this apparently is the definition of liberty:

1. Freedom from shame
2. Freedom from social pressures
3. Freedom from the consequences of your actions.

I got ganged-up on because something just really ticked me off about that facebook post and I wrote a wall of text talking about how the Government is going to do what it feels is in it's best interest. And despite whatever study you want to pull out that states smokers die earlier = less medical expenses, you are dumb to argue that a society filled with chain smokers is somehow more economically productive and healthy than a society filled with non-smoker or e-cig smokers. NOTE: I don't mind e-cigs at all since it is just vegetable glycerin and water being vaporized. I think if everyone smoked e-cigs, then outside smoking bans wouldn't have any justification.

But I digress. The point is that the government thinks it is a win-win for the national health and security of the country to get extra revenue from tobacco cigs and to get people to stop smoking as a side effect since COPD is still the number 3 killer in the US.

And in return I get waves of people calling me some liberal statist because I feel it is appropriate for government to tell people what they should consume. They tell me that in a free society, government doesn't have any say in how people live their lives.

What a joke. Any tax no matter how big or how small is government interfering in your decisions by artificially inflating or deflating the relative cost of things to buy. You want to bitch about a cigarette tax manipulating you?

1. Tax refunds for solar panels is manipulative.
2. Tax breaks for married couples is manipulative, their origins were meant to reward and encourage child birth.
3. Gasoline tax for building roads are manipulative. Government is trying to tell you to stop buying those big trucks.

Hell, a TARIFF on imported goods is BIG GOVERNMENT trying to tell you that you shouldn't buy chinese goods. The oppression of 1800s America must have been so suffocating in how all those tariffs forced innocent americans to buy their goods from an American manufacturer.

The fact is that the power to tax is the power to manipulate. And the ability to raise taxes is basically maybe one of three or four basic abilities that all governments must have. The Articles of Confederation proved this. So if you want "Big Government" to have absolutely NO influence on what you put in your body, then the logical conclusion is for there to be no government.

And that is why I think the current right-wing in the US is so ass-backwards. They idolize extreme individualism without realizing that every single application of it taken to its logical conclusion is anarchy. They want government to be something that government by definition cannot.

I had more to say, but it is just dumb rambling at this point.

a completely inoffensive name

04-20-2013, 09:13

People don't even know what the Social Contract is. The sad thing is that if you tried to explain it to them they would think you are a fascist for thinking that people have a "place" in society.

There is no such thing as the middle ground. There are the utopias and there is the pragmatic reality. Disappointment is another tyranny that people want emancipation from, so we must not support compromise.

I agree completely, when it comes to political culture the US is completely broken.

Husar

04-20-2013, 09:33

I wanted to point out the fault in your argument but I actually think it's a good argument. :2thumbsup: ~D

Hell, moderate is a fake concept; its just a euphemism for opportunistic coward when you use it in politics. Our entire political culture is broken, honestly.
Are you saying real men are radicals? :inquisitive:
Doesn't seem like saying that would help fix politics.

HopAlongBunny

04-20-2013, 10:36

ACIN you fail to realize we have all drunk of the soma and become as gods.

Are you not one with the body?

http://youtu.be/Bpzxf_flm8M

Husar

04-20-2013, 11:10

I'd rather say real men are principled. A life-long pragmatist is no such thing.

But there is still a difference between not being principled and being a coward IMO. Just like being too principled and immobile is as bad as being an opportunist.

The Stranger

04-20-2013, 11:26

But there is still a difference between not being principled and being a coward IMO. Just like being too principled and immobile is as bad as being an opportunist.

is it principally bad to be too principled and immobile or does that depend on the situation? :grin:

ps whats up with the constant double posting, automatically i might add.

Rhyfelwyr

04-20-2013, 13:38

According to a lot of people this apparently is the definition of liberty:

1. Freedom from shame
2. Freedom from social pressures
3. Freedom from the consequences of your actions.

And that is why I think the current right-wing in the US is so ass-backwards. They idolize extreme individualism without realizing that every single application of it taken to its logical conclusion is anarchy. They want government to be something that government by definition cannot.

I don't think your definition of this new extreme individualism matches up with your idea that the American Right is the worst expression of it - it certainly doesn't seem to want a freedom from shame, social pressure, or from the consequences of your actions.

I guess they would just say that such pressures should come from society, rather than the government, since the potential for abuse by the government is too strong.

If you like Rousseau's Social Contract, you should be in full agreement with them. Remember, he said that in a representative democracy, the government ceases to be a pure expression of the 'general will', and becomes an independent will in its own right. When this happens, the relationship between the government and the general will continues to deteriorate until you are left with a tyrannical government completely opposed to the general will.

Indeed, the pessimistic and suspicious outlook of the American Right on the government is entirely in-keeping with the idea of the Social Contract.

EDIT: And didn't this forum used to have a policy of no swearing?

Husar

04-20-2013, 14:32

is it principally bad to be too principled and immobile or does that depend on the situation? :grin:
Depends on the principle.
Also exceptions prove the rule.

ps whats up with the constant double posting, automatically i might add.
A software issue. An element beyond our control was updated by the host and the forum software doesn't work properly with it.
Apparently they're on it so we'll see about a fix. If you can't wait, I think TinCow takes donations, no promises of anything however.

ICantSpellDawg

04-20-2013, 18:16

You are a liberal statist. We are born and determine what we do or don't do. A government who gets in the way of our determination is going to meet resistance.

Ciggarettes create chemical dependence, so they have a questionable "individual rights" value, but still. Government that believes that it can tell us what we can and can't do should expect an endless ideological war with it's governed. We live once, and nobody has any idea what for; what gives them the right to tell us anything at all?

If I don't want to do something, I don't care whether a single person, a group of people, or the majority of everyone is telling me that I must. I won't and they have no moral legitimacy in my compulsion. It's my responsibility to find a workable and responsible way of live. I'm not saying that I want to do stupid stuff - hey, I appreciate and seek moral guidance - but I have a right to do stupid things as long as it doesnt endanger others or destroy the rights of others.

Major Robert Dump

04-20-2013, 18:19

You said too many dirty words.

Here is a funny one:

On the hearing for the budget recently, a Republican congressman was asking a treasury rep about the fact that people get Tax INCENTIVES on their retirement accounts, but after the 300 million mark they stop getting those incentives for any amount that surpasses the 300 million. He was referring to this as a PENALTY, and was doing so with a straight face, while trying to relate it to the common man. He even got offended when the treasury guy balked at him, and told him most people will never get to the 300 million mark, and the congressman gave him the whole "my daddy was a blue collar worker" filth.

So, apparently only giving some partial freebie is a now considered a penalty. Reminds me of how denial of an annual budget increase for an agency is now considered a "budget cut."

ACIN, everyone is on the take. There is inherently no difference between the below-poverty welfare class who expects to be coddled and the millionaire welfare class who expects to be coddled. Both are fine representatives of American Exceptional-ism. The tobacco tax which -- if I am not mistaken will include Ecigs -- is about far more than just stopping smoking and funding specific programs. That money will go to the general fund to make more money to spend. Smokers are just another group to poke and prod for more cash because we can. End of story. Nothing wholesome about defending smokers, nothing wholesome about taxing them more.

And hey, how about that smart phone tax we got coming?

Strike For The South

04-20-2013, 22:07

Yea, people disgust me too.

Major Robert Dump

04-20-2013, 22:22

There's a pretty big difference between your two extremes, MRD. The poor guy is on the take because he's got no other options, or his other options really suck. The Rich guy is on the take because, uh... why again? Greed? Yeah, greed.

No. you are thinking that I am lumping all or the other together. Not all poor are the same, and not all rich are the same. I am not talking about the poor people who are in legitimate need and using the social safety net for the reasons they were created. I am talking about the people who refuse to work because they can get the same amount of money through unemployment, food stamps and cash benefits, and then when the unemployment and benefits run out, they shift on over to SSDI with a fake back injury. If you do not think this happens, you are insane. There are plenty of other options, and they may in fact suck -- like a crappy job -- but keeping things like unemployment and benefits when there are other options available means you are lying and technically breaking the law. If you turn down or dont look for a job, your unemployment stops. Why would I go to work as a cook when I could get 75% of my salary through other means, and if you throw in food stamps I damn near break even. I could work a secret job on the side, happens all the time with workers comp. Screw a job. Once

I am not saying they are the majority of poor people by any means. But they are cut from the same cloth as the wealthy exploiters. They do it because they can, and if you try to take it away, they cry foul because they deserve it.

And hey, since we are talking about smoking, and now insurance cannot deny previously existing conditions, and now some states are labeling smoking as a medical condition..... we can all probably expect the day where employers can tell you what you can and cannot do of the clock, since they are paying your insurance and all. Already happens with drugs, and there have been cases where companies fire/refuse to hire smokers because they have a top notch health plan. I am pretty sure these comapnies survived the court challenge. And to be honest, of they are picking up the health care tab, then really they should be allowed some say.

Kadagar_AV

04-20-2013, 22:30

Major Robert Dump

04-20-2013, 22:46

But what percentage of poor people is that, MRD? Less than 1%? Less than .01%? Its not even a rational concept. Its not even a good conversation to have. It doesn't belong in the same paragraph or even the same argument as rich parasites.

There is an entire industry built on catching people committing workers compensation fraud and personal injury fraud. An insurance company is willing to pay someone like me 4000 + expenses dollars to watch a guy for 5 days. These types of fraud are 80% of private investigator cases. It is so common, that anyone whoever gets a settlement from a private company or goes on workers comp should expect to be spied on at least twice a year for the rest of their lives for the settlement or the length of the workers comp, even though half the spy cases turn up nothing, which of course does not mean there is no fraud, it just means your 5 days might not have been the right ones to watch if there was fraud. If these insurance companies were losing more money spying on people than they were getting back in recouped settlements and denial of benefits, then they would stop hiring PIs. But they don't.

Sorry, I don't have any percentages. But the above is just workers comp and injury settlements. The effort the government expends to stop welfare fraud and SSDI fraud is minimal after you initially get the award, they maybe cross reference W2s and send out a social worker from time to time.

What do you think I did in between my deployments? I had 3 months to burn. You don't actually think I worked, did you? I went on unemployment. I paid into it, afterall. 3 months. Never looked for a job, never had to prove a thing, never even talked to a human being to get it, just did it all online. Got drunk every day and played video games. There is no doubt in my mind I could have done all that for another 12 months. Hell, if I had tits and a vagina and a couple of babies with different fathers (who I had hide when the social worker came, of course) I would be getting all kinds of cheddar.

My entire extended family is like what I just described above. I know A LOT of people who I am unrelated to who sell weed for a living and are on welfare. And this is just my personal experience.

Gotta be more than 1%. You have an awful lot of faith in humanity. It may not cost even a fraction of what the rich parasites get a way with, but it is, at the core, the same type of person.

Rhyfelwyr

04-20-2013, 23:03

While it's true that some people on benefits/welfare choose not to work, I don't hold it against them. There are people that have been completely broken by their conditions, they just can't function like healthy citizens. They're brought up with completely different values, with a whole different outlook on society - responding to the environment that they live in means becoming the sort of person that will really struggle to adapt to normal working life, far less be given a shot at it.

Major Robert Dump

04-20-2013, 23:07

Perhaps my point got buried in my rant.

American Exceptional-ism, which is frequently an identity carried by the wealthy, left and right, can be seen at all levels of society, all the way down to the welfare class.

Look, dude, I want people to eat and have a home. I don't want people to suffer. Furthermore, the more miserable people are the more likely they are to come rob and kill me.

I'm not even calling for an end to welfare. I am merely pointing out that people come to expect something as being naturally guaranteed when in fact it is not. This is not to be confused with ACINs less government=anarchy argument, because a lot of people who are all less government actually have alterior motives for being that way that has nothing to do with small government. They talk a big talk, but in reality, they want government where it benefits them and no where else, that what it boils down to.

Those people he refers to who are bitching about tobacco taxes are most likely pro-all sorts of things that cost a bunch of money, and they are cool with getting that money from somewhere other than themselves. That in essence makes them no different than the government-solves-everything people. It's actually not that different than your theory in another thread that the system simply exploits people to fight against each other, because thats what keeps The Man well fed.

While I understand that being taxed more is frustrating because government is highly inefficient and wasteful (not talking about programs, I am talking about the execution of programs), I think a lot of people express it poorly and connect things that are not necessarily connected, not unlike people complaining about the current immigration bill in relation to the boston bomb.

By not having to pay the cigarette tax government is not going to become more efficient.

Major Robert Dump

04-20-2013, 23:10

Major Robert Dump

04-20-2013, 23:23

Quite. But who is further in the wrong? Certainly he who has the most control over his circumstances is most responsible for his actions, right?

That is not what I was implying. I didn't think we were discussing who has the right to be more this or that.

I took ACINS OP as being an example of someone with unrealistic expectations/concerns and expressing said expectations in a poor, self-centered manner. It's actually a very human thing to do, but more so a very American thing to do.

I won't go into the "whys" of why it's American, but deep down inside I yearn for the times when we could blame almost everything on or wives or having pissed off a diety

Rhyfelwyr

04-20-2013, 23:25

And everything you just said pretty well also fits people born into filthy richedness, or the self-mades who, as they say, "forgot where they came from"

:shrug:

Regardless of your moral take on it, it's a reality, it's worth being aware of. The laissez-faire approach doesn't work because we are shaped by our conditions.

Major Robert Dump

04-20-2013, 23:29

:shrug:

Regardless of your moral take on it, it's a reality, it's worth being aware of. The laissez-faire approach doesn't work because we are shaped by our conditions.

I was not advocating such approach. People will always find a way to justify what they do, whether it's justified or not, and the justification will frequently be self-centered

a completely inoffensive name

04-20-2013, 23:45

I don't think your definition of this new extreme individualism matches up with your idea that the American Right is the worst expression of it - it certainly doesn't seem to want a freedom from shame, social pressure, or from the consequences of your actions.

I disagree. The libertarians I know would argue that you should have the right to shout fire in a crowded theater because anything less is government treading on your rights. How is this not freedom from the above? You should be ashamed of doing something like that, you should be put in jail if you did just that and caused a panic but that doesn't matter when you take individual rights to their maximum.

I guess they would just say that such pressures should come from society, rather than the government, since the potential for abuse by the government is too strong.
For the evangelicals I would agree with this assessment, for the non-religious not as much.

If you like Rousseau's Social Contract, you should be in full agreement with them. Remember, he said that in a representative democracy, the government ceases to be a pure expression of the 'general will', and becomes an independent will in its own right. When this happens, the relationship between the government and the general will continues to deteriorate until you are left with a tyrannical government completely opposed to the general will.
I haven't fully read the Social Contract (I have it in my room though) so I don't want to commit myself to that idea fully. But I do think that there is some sort of give and take that is inherent in having any government. What my problem is, is that people want the take and don't recognize the give under pseudo-freedom fighting language.

EDIT: And didn't this forum used to have a policy of no swearing?

I made some edits, I was really tired since I posted it 2am my time.

a completely inoffensive name

04-21-2013, 00:03

You are a liberal statist. We are born and determine what we do or don't do. A government who gets in the way of our determination is going to meet resistance.
Wild assertion appears.

Ciggarettes create chemical dependence, so they have a questionable "individual rights" value, but still. Government that believes that it can tell us what we can and can't do should expect an endless ideological war with it's governed. We live once, and nobody has any idea what for; what gives them the right to tell us anything at all?
You don't understand. Government does not believe it can tell us what we can and can't do, it knows it can because all governments have the power to tax and the ability to tax is the ability to meddle in lives. Do you deny this statement about the power to tax?

If I don't want to do something, I don't care whether a single person, a group of people, or the majority of everyone is telling me that I must. I won't and they have no moral legitimacy in my compulsion. It's my responsibility to find a workable and responsible way of live. I'm not saying that I want to do stupid stuff - hey, I appreciate and seek moral guidance - but I have a right to do stupid things as long as it doesnt endanger others or destroy the rights of others.

You call me a liberal statist, but I really don't think I am.

What I am trying to talk about is that people are eager nowadays to behave as they please, to demand what they want and to refuse any sort of restraint whether it be from the government or society because of weak logic.

What I want is a dialogue that is better than spouting grandiose statements of "my freedoms" when it comes to a disagreement about the roles of government in society. Everyone tries to be a freedom fighter and it is this mentality that creates this situation where if you accept limitations on freedoms (and there is no doubt that all freedoms have their limitations) you must be a statist.

a completely inoffensive name

04-21-2013, 00:09

Looking back on what I wrote. I think I initially wanted to talk about much people my age are annoying me which is where the first list there comes from. The way that people my age act generally annoy me and I wanted to talk about it to hash it out and see if I had a legitimate point or if I was annoyed because I am a shy and introverted guy.

Then it kind of conflated with my annoyance at libertarians and republicans who seem to want government to be in a superposition of being influential on people's lives and not influential and I conflated the attitudes and it all kind of became nonsensical at the end.

What I should do is probably write my rants in microsoft word at night then revise in the morning if I want to post. But hey, I still got an approval from Husar, so maybe it wasn't so bad after all.

Major Robert Dump

04-21-2013, 00:11

Relax. Go have a smoke.

Xiahou

04-21-2013, 00:21

1. Tax refunds for solar panels is manipulative.
2. Tax breaks for married couples is manipulative, their origins were meant to reward and encourage child birth.
3. Gasoline tax for building roads are manipulative. Government is trying to tell you to stop buying those big trucks.Yes, yes, and yes.

Hell, a TARIFF on imported goods is BIG GOVERNMENT trying to tell you that you shouldn't buy chinese goods.Yep.

The fact is that the power to tax is the power to manipulate. And the ability to raise taxes is basically maybe one of three or four basic abilities that all governments must have. The Articles of Confederation proved this. So if you want "Big Government" to have absolutely NO influence on what you put in your body, then the logical conclusion is for there to be no government.Here's the disconnect. Taxes are often used for social engineering and that is wrong. Taxes should be for revenue to fund the operation of government- not to create incentives or disincentives for pet causes of politicians and lobbyists.

ICantSpellDawg

04-21-2013, 00:29

Government has no moral authority, no matter how much it tries to convey it. It has power authority, the old fashioned kind where we do what it says because it says. In the modern era, where we supposedly create the state, it is becoming increasingly clear that we must limit it to the lowest common denominator need. As those needs change, so should government.

First on the agenda is breaking down the government's arbitrary moral hold on what it has no business being involved in and has no actual moral authority over.
Second on the agenda is determining the core requirements that we as individuals are better served by keeping in the public realm. This should change and we should be cutting the governments role where it is no longer needed or becoming a burden (the postal service, certain drug enforcement, etc)
I want a basic and modular government. Should there be zoning to keep explosions from destroying a town? Should financial services be regulated to avoid massive scale abuses of investors? Should there be laws against killing, stealing finite objects? Yes, Yes, Yes.
Should the government make most drugs illegal, recognize the institution of marriage, outlaw firearms, recognize holidays, give tax breaks for desired behavior, etc? No, No, No.

Husar

04-21-2013, 00:45

Holy crap, dawg. I'm touched. I've never seen a post I more thoroughly disagreed with. I can only hope that by the end of this glorious day April 20th I will be able to articulate a response.

And I thought you agree with his post because you thanked him for it. :laugh4:

The problem I see with all the deregulation is that you hand the power to someone else. If the power is not in the hands of the government, then it's in the hands of the wealthy, the landowners or capital owners. Now you could say that the people can retain power by using the markets. Say if a company offers a really bad job for 1$ an hour, noone will take it and as such, all the jobs that are offered are pretty decent at least. On the other hand though, you just removed all kinds of social safety nets and think of people who reject a job as lazy moochers. So even if my example may be extreme, I think you turn people into "slaves" of the companies, with the exception of high achievers perhaps.

Just look at other countries where government control doesn't work properly and people who are indebted have to sell their children to work in factories. Yes, you may want to retain laws against that but you made government so impotent that only lazy moochers will want to become politicians since there is no real incentive to become one. As such you reduce the effectiveness of what little government is left.

As a result the wealthy will pay for their own security, which will control their territory and keep their workers in line because the government does not dare mess with them as noone in the government has the balls or funding to mess with them. You turn your country into a capitalist hellhole where your children work for their slave owners. :creep:

ICantSpellDawg

04-21-2013, 01:09

And I thought you agree with his post because you thanked him for it. :laugh4:

The problem I see with all the deregulation is that you hand the power to someone else. If the power is not in the hands of the government, then it's in the hands of the wealthy, the landowners or capital owners. Now you could say that the people can retain power by using the markets. Say if a company offers a really bad job for 1$ an hour, noone will take it and as such, all the jobs that are offered are pretty decent at least. On the other hand though, you just removed all kinds of social safety nets and think of people who reject a job as lazy moochers. So even if my example may be extreme, I think you turn people into "slaves" of the companies, with the exception of high achievers perhaps.

Just look at other countries where government control doesn't work properly and people who are indebted have to sell their children to work in factories. Yes, you may want to retain laws against that but you made government so impotent that only lazy moochers will want to become politicians since there is no real incentive to become one. As such you reduce the effectiveness of what little government is left.

As a result the wealthy will pay for their own security, which will control their territory and keep their workers in line because the government does not dare mess with them as noone in the government has the balls or funding to mess with them. You turn your country into a capitalist hellhole where your children work for their slave owners. :creep:

I like that you are at least thinking about the reasons for government in the first place. Too many people just seem to take it as a given. Freedom to do whatever you want is a given, to me.. Government authority is only acceptable where it preserves that freedom for everyone. If someone views government as the given and rights as the scraps that can be left to the people with minimal effect, those people are idiots.

Greyblades

04-21-2013, 02:42

I fear I am losing my ability to mske an argument. I see so much in ICSD's posts that I just find fundamentally wrong, but when I try to put my thoughts to paper, or indeed even think about putting them to paper, I draw a blank save for "gut feeling". Most frustrating, especially considering the overwhelmingly skillful company.

HopAlongBunny

04-21-2013, 02:46

http://youtu.be/m9-R8T1SuG4

Montmorency

04-21-2013, 03:21

Freedom, freedom, freedom: one of the greatest myths of all time.

It is easy to rail against the tyranny you see, but how about the tyrannies that are invisible?

Truly, it is not the whip so much as the hand that wields it which fools resent.

Tellos Athenaios

04-21-2013, 05:50

Government has no moral authority, no matter how much it tries to convey it.

Oh you make this too easy. This has been well and truly studied, basically, settled political science since about "The Social Contract". Government is a bargain between people, a quid pro quo. Moreover it is also a bargain between individuals (you, me) and the rest (the forum). This where government gets its moral authority over you: that is you have to live up to your end of the bargain, and in representing the rest of us government does not have to accept you not meeting your obligations under the deal. Which include that you shall pay whatever taxes the government damn well imposes on you. It's a little more complicated that this, but we're already at a considerably more accurate view of how the world works than whatever is in your post.

So from the fact that you have an obligation towards the rest of us, we as represented by the government have a moral authority to remind you and seek redress if you don't.

It has power authority, the old fashioned kind where we do what it says because it says. In the modern era, where we supposedly create the state, it is becoming increasingly clear that we must limit it to the lowest common denominator need. As those needs change, so should government.
This is quite clearly contrary to pretty much everything ever written about the history of mankind. Next thing you tell me we'll eventually end up being hunter gatherers again.

No: the story of humanity is the story of ever more complex organisation as a function of the scale of populations. Unless you propose we reduce population numbers drastically you will continue to be wrong. You mistake government for laws dictating what you can and cannot do, but government is far more than that. Its main job is actually maintaining low level organisation of its people, enabling them to get together and do useful things, the laws are merely a side effect.

First on the agenda is breaking down the government's arbitrary moral hold on what it has no business being involved in and has no actual moral authority over.
Second on the agenda is determining the core requirements that we as individuals are better served by keeping in the public realm. This should change and we should be cutting the governments role where it is no longer needed or becoming a burden (the postal service, certain drug enforcement, etc)
I want a basic and modular government. Should there be zoning to keep explosions from destroying a town? Should financial services be regulated to avoid massive scale abuses of investors? Should there be laws against killing, stealing finite objects? Yes, Yes, Yes.
Should the government make most drugs illegal, recognize the institution of marriage, outlaw firearms, recognize holidays, give tax breaks for desired behavior, etc? No, No, No.

And this, has nothing to do with the size and complexity of government. At all. It's just a bunch of antiquated rules, they can be enforced, struck or rewritten as society sees fit. Government is about all the basic services which you take for granted so much you hardly notice them. Like traffic lights, for instance.

HopAlongBunny

04-21-2013, 10:14

The George Carlin bit I posted might seem flippant but he illustrates the point so nicely.

In the USA (and Canada) people were stripped of their rights and marched off to concentration camps for the crime of being born to people of the wrong race. That is what your rights are worth; they exist at the pleasure of the government.

The latest manifestation might be being labelled as an "Enemy Combatant" or "Terrorist". The government can make any distinction it chooses really; rights are a fiction that exist only so long as it is useful and disappear when they get in the way.

Husar

04-21-2013, 10:59

rights are a fiction that exist only so long as it is useful and disappear when they get in the way.

The same is true for the value of money, nation states, love and other things that only exist as long as individuals or a group of individuals want them to exist. If your government can easily take all of them away, it's probably a sign of too much complacency. If the government does not represent the will of the people it's because the people let it. The government only exists as long as the people want it. It has authority because the people accept it. The power of the government and the money of the government are given by the people, so without the people giving it that, the government has no leverage.

HopAlongBunny

04-21-2013, 11:27

If your government can easily take all of them away, it's probably a sign of too much complacency. If the government does not represent the will of the people it's because the people let it.

Actually it's part of our Constitution :p The "Notwithstanding Clause" was part of the deal that was struck to pass the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I would be very surprised to learn of a government that does not have a similar mechanism.

I agree with your post however; Bokononism might be a fictional philosophy but it has application in real-life :happy:

Tellos Athenaios

04-21-2013, 14:45

Actually it's part of our Constitution :p The "Notwithstanding Clause" was part of the deal that was struck to pass the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I would be very surprised to learn of a government that does not have a similar mechanism.

I agree with your post however; Bokononism might be a fictional philosophy but it has application in real-life :happy:

Actually it is a lot easier in the parts of the world that were inspired by English law, than it would be in most of the rest of the world. Habeas corpus and related rights can be easily suspended (and have been, quite often) by the simple expedient of getting the powers that be to agree on that and pass the relevant act. (This has happened quite often, for example in the USA during the Bush admin in 2006.) However, in countries with a more sane legal tradition (and by sane, I mean leaving less to a vague notion of "established practice") there is typically a constitution which grants rights and is binding. This means that a simple act to temporarily suspend the equivalent of habeas corpus is out of the question. It requires something quite a bit more drastic to get around constitutional protections here.

The Lurker Below

04-21-2013, 16:06

[QUOTE=a completely inoffensive name;2053522748]Looking back on what I wrote. I think I initially wanted to talk about much people my age are annoying me QUOTE]

don't feel bad, people your age annoy me sometimes as well. throw in the people my age and the people my pops age that frequently act like the people your age and that makes a lot of annoying people.

I'm just sorry you hate your freedom loving libertarian friends. Lots of us here seem very quick to protect the unwanted pregnant girls who volunteer to have their bodies brutally intruded yet they also want to deny their smoker friends the right to inhale some gases. :(

Greyblades

04-21-2013, 17:28

Major Robert Dump

04-21-2013, 18:38

I believe this nation borrows a billion dollars a day to operate.
Despite that, everyone still wants a piece,
Those who need to make sacrifice need to be someone besides me because (insert reason here)

The OP criticism of the guy is valid because the guy is really bitching for nothing. There is really no point to whine except to whine. Nothing will change,
Yet, the OP should also understand that they guy has every right to be concerned. Because nothing will change.

We are living on credit. There is no way out. Every day we spend loads of money and stupid crap like Cowboy Poetry Museums, Congressional Staff Banquets, etc. The President had a R&B show live from the White House LOL. We run the DOD through contracting methods that reward people to work as slowly and inefficiently as humanly possible. We stack state and federal agencies with dumb laws that take more people to enforce all for the sake of some vague political idea, like a "hate crimes" and and drug laws and farm subsidies and terrorism laws that consider harmless chlorine bombs as WMDs. It just goes on and on and on and on, I won't even get started in the financial sector laws. It's all just so retarded. So much of our economy revolves around accounting tricks and reorganization and financial sector fees. It's comical. We couldnt even do socialized medicine right with a single payer system and instead had to pass a huge amount of costs on to the employers, I mean WTF?

I recall someone on these boards once saying that the actual value of Americans and their assets still exceeds the national debt, which makes us okay. Don't recall who that was, but anymore that sounds like some real Greece-ey rationalization.

I think I said something like "we used to be an nation who could fist fight, and now we just pencil whip" to which ACIN responded that we are always developing new tech that will make us money and make life easier..... the problem with "new tech" is that tech streamlines, it puts people out of jobs, more jobs are always lost from the old tech than jobs gained for new tech, this is the way of evolution. I'm not saying that we should not go down that path, I am simply saying that in conjunction with everything else -- like the fact that we IMPORT everything because we need cheap stuff to support our fat ass way of life, and that a fifth of the nation is employed in the financial sector.

Unless we go to war with China and get reset to zero (which would really, honestly just make Washington do it all over again), or unless we discover the next oil, I simply do not see how we can continue down the same path without people getting screwed really, really, really bad at some point. I'm not being some doomsday guy and saying the nation is going to collapse into a pile of ashes, but at some point things are going to get real bad, real quick, for certain groups of people.

That is my pessimistic post for today. Carry on.

Greyblades

04-21-2013, 20:03

So... is there anything that can be realistically done about it?

I'm guessing no, but I'm still asking.

Husar

04-21-2013, 20:45

I'm just sorry you hate your freedom loving libertarian friends. Lots of us here seem very quick to protect the unwanted pregnant girls who volunteer to have their bodies brutally intruded yet they also want to deny their smoker friends the right to inhale some gases. :(

They can inhale whatever they want as long as they don't exhale it into my face. So either stop exhaling until the smoke has settled or get filters for your nostrils and we're fine.
Or find another addiction, like alcohol.

Unless we go to war with China and get reset to zero (which would really, honestly just make Washington do it all over again), or unless we discover the next oil, I simply do not see how we can continue down the same path without people getting screwed really, really, really bad at some point. I'm not being some doomsday guy and saying the nation is going to collapse into a pile of ashes, but at some point things are going to get real bad, real quick, for certain groups of people.

I've been saying that for a while. Can we be doomsday buddies?