Hostile Takeover of Washington is brewing

[ICantSpellDawg]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/22/bobby-jindal_n_5519158.html

Do you believe him? Personally, I see this country succumbing to massive civil disturbance over the next 10-20 years. I don't want it to happen because it would be miserable and throw the planet into a dark age, but human nature is human nature, and I'm not sure that Americans have much in common beyond language anymore.

Not secession, but a hemorrhaging of civil strife and asymmetrical warfare all over the continent. Given our understanding of human history, is it crazier to think that it will happen or that it won't? Are Americans becoming more similar or less similar?

[Greyblades]

Also bobby jindal is an oblivious idiot even by Republican candidate standard.

[Fisherking]

Americans are feeling oppressed and repressed by a government that represents only the 1% and global corporations.

The government has a monopoly on force but widespread demonstrations could have an effect. The trouble here is that the media is controlled and operated by that 1%.

Whether their laws are constitutional is in the hands of 9 government lawyers who decide what they want to here from whom.

The US was founded on limited government but we seem to have all powerful government.

And you don’t see a need to reform it? Dark Age?

[Greyblades]

Reform? Yes. Revolt? No. With america's track record with revolts armed conflict is the last thing that will solve it's woes, especially if it's the very portion of society keeping those 1% in power that's doing the revolting.

Edit: actually I guess if it is the republicans doing the revolting I suppose it could be beneficial, when the revolution inevitably gets itself massacred there'll be fewer obstructionist politicians in power.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Also bobby jindal is an oblivious idiot even by Republican candidate standard.
Combine enough "oblivious idiots" and mistakes can be made.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Americans are feeling oppressed and repressed by a government that represents only the 1% and global corporations.

The government has a monopoly on force but widespread demonstrations could have an effect. The trouble here is that the media is controlled and operated by that 1%.

Whether their laws are constitutional is in the hands of 9 government lawyers who decide what they want to here from whom.

The US was founded on limited government but we seem to have all powerful government.

And you don’t see a need to reform it? Dark Age?

Of course there is a need for reform. Oligarchy is simply big government unconnected from even the whims of the people. Arguably the worst of both worlds.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Reform? Yes. Revolt? No. With america's track record with revolts armed conflict is the last thing that will solve it's woes, especially if it's the very portion of society keeping those 1% in power that's doing the revolting.

Edit: actually I guess if it is the republicans doing the revolting I suppose it could be beneficial, when the revolution inevitably gets itself massacred there'll be fewer obstructionist politicians in power.

This is an interesting sentiment, from the types of people who eschew firearms and alienate the armed forces. Who are your allies? Brutal "meritocrats" in government?

[ICantSpellDawg]

If the Tea Party had popped up during the Bush years, maybe I'd have been convinced of some merit. As it stands, Obama is one of the better presidents we've had in generations (that's not to say he's a good president, though--we haven't had an objectively good president in a very long time, if ever). 99% of the vitriol spewed against him is pure unadulterated grade-A conspiracy-theory bullshit. The sorts of people who buy into it aren't smart enough to do anything other than support every stupid Cliven Bundy-like figure that comes along. All this talk about "We need smaller government!" lol. Government is weak and puny, the real tyrants in our society are corporations that can push the government around any which way they please, and they are empowered by the tea party garbage.

I agree, 90% of the garbage spewed about Obama is hogwash - BUT - to argue the absurdity that "Obama is one of the better presidents we've had in generations". WHAT? what were your main concerns about the policies of the past "generations of Presidents" that Obama hasn't continued or made worse?

Also, "government is weak and puny" and "nothing you citizens can do will ever stop the juggernaut that is government" (which you have suggested before) are inconsistent thoughts.

[Fisherking]

It only seems inconsistent because you refuse to have a three dimensional view of government.

see a Dr. Get checked for heavy metals.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It only seems inconsistent because you refuse to have a three dimensional view of government.

Please elaborate

[HoreTore]

I am a scissor, and I am awesome. I've been cutting up mah papers all day long, there's noone to stop me!




Oh hey there mr Rock....

[Greyblades]

This is an interesting sentiment, from the types of people who eschew firearms and alienate the armed forces. Who are your allies? Brutal "meritocrats" in government?

Oh just everyone who isnt stupid enough to fight to overthrow a government just because the republican politicians throw a tantrum, IE 95% of the population of your country. Seriously, it's Bobby Jindall, he's as much an indicator of popular american sentiment as NAMBLA.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Oh just everyone who isnt stupid enough to fight to overthrow a government just because the republican politicians throw a tantrum, IE 95% of the population of your country. Seriously, it's Bobby Jindall, he's as much an indicator of popular american sentiment as NAMBLA.

He is the governor of a State with 5 million people and a GDP the size of Finland or Greece.

[Greyblades]

So is rick scott, and while they voted him in, I dont think everyone in florida is a psychopathic lizardman.

Besides, louisiana is a hardline red state and jindal was the only republican running, the only way they wouldnt have elected him is if he ate babies.

[ICantSpellDawg]

So is rick scott, and while they voted him in, I dont think everyone in florida is a psychopathic lizardman.

No, actually, Rick Scott is the governor of a State with 20 million and a GDP the size of Turkey.

[Greyblades]

No, actually, Rick Scott is the governor of a State with 20 million and a GDP the size of Turkey.
It was a joke. Besides, louisiana is a hard line red state and jindal was the only republican running for two terms, they didnt elect him for his viewpoints and I dont see them following him into battle.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It was a joke. Besides, louisiana is a hardline red state and jindal was the only republican running for two terms, the only way they wouldn't have elected him is if he ate babies.

What about Rick Perry? Governor of a state of 26 million and a GDP just under Norway, Sweden, & Denmark combined. All of these nobody's piled on top of one another stars to look like somebody after a while.

[Kadagar_AV]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/22/bobby-jindal_n_5519158.html

Do you believe him? Personally, I see this country succumbing to massive civil disturbance over the next 10-20 years. I don't want it to happen because it would be miserable and throw the planet into a dark age, but human nature is human nature, and I'm not sure that Americans have much in common beyond language anymore.

Not secession, but a hemorrhaging of civil strife and asymmetrical warfare all over the continent. Given our understanding of human history, is it crazier to think that it will happen or that it won't? Are Americans becoming more similar or less similar?

Eh, you have no official language, and quite some areas are overrun with non-english speaking people. So if that's what you have got going for you... :inquisitive:

[Greyblades]

Pretty sure that having all of thier official documents exclusively written in english makes it thier official language.

What about Rick Perry? Governor of a state of 26 million and a GDP just under Norway, Sweden, & Denmark combined. All of these nobody's piled on top of one another stars to look like somebody after a while. Except he didnt run on a "start the second civil war" ticket, neither of them did, they both ran and were elected in states that are notoriously dead set on electing republican candidates, just because they were elected the 2/3 times before they started preaching the anarchist's bible doesnt mean that they would get national support for a revoloution.

Now if they still get relected in the next gubernatorial elections and both had to defeat an equally competent republican candidate that advocated letting the president stay that would mean something but right now they're only speaking for themselves.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Also bobby jindal is an oblivious idiot even by Republican candidate standard.

I need to start voting Democrat. Obviously my GOP leanings have been sapping my mind. Nobody can look at a conservative agenda and believe in it unless they are a drooling idiot.

:dizzy2:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If the Tea Party had popped up during the Bush years, maybe I'd have been convinced of some merit. As it stands, Obama is one of the better presidents we've had in generations (that's not to say he's a good president, though--we haven't had an objectively good president in a very long time, if ever). 99% of the vitriol spewed against him is pure unadulterated grade-A conspiracy-theory bullshit. The sorts of people who buy into it aren't smart enough to do anything other than support every stupid Cliven Bundy-like figure that comes along. All this talk about "We need smaller government!" lol. Government is weak and puny, the real tyrants in our society are corporations that can push the government around any which way they please, and they are empowered by the tea party garbage.

Oy vey do I disagree as to the quality and direction of the Obama administration. The best of recent years was the thoroughly muzzled Clinton admin after the first midterm election and before the blue dress idiocy (as though THAT rose to the level of impeachable....stupid). Prior to that I thought Reagan did well for the first six years and Nixon policy wise might have done great things if he hadn't been a crook. Since WW2? Ike by a mile.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The point that Jindal seemed to be trying to make - leaving aside any insinuations about civil strife, which would only be to the benefit of a warlord who loves bloodshed - is that people resent well-meaning central governance requiring people thousands of miles away to think and act in a certain way. Whether this is actualized by requiring that all laws be consistent, all curriculum consistent, etc; this is anathema to anyone outside of the immediate influence group of that central authority.

The problem with a centralized educational curriculum is that it demands that all lessons be identical, not that it requires a base standard of education. This is a problem with most progressive policies, it isnt that they want a base standard on which to build unique concepts, economies and legal systems; it is that they want to command it to the enth degree morning, noon and night.

I reject sameness and I reject the idea that we are a nation founded on revolting against a 10% tax rate enacted by a government thousands of miles away only to be under the boot of a government thousands of miles away with a tax rate of nearly 50% a few hundred years later. I want a Federal government that ensures a base standard, not the endpoint.

The warning is this; there are consequences to a take no prisoners approach to changes that are vehemently opposed by many. I'm sure that plenty of Northerners thought that those who opposed their domination were hillbillies with a smaller population, weaker economy, and dumber ideas. It didn't stop them from surging into the Pennsylvania after years of superior military action that was unexpected. Just be sure that playing with fire is something that you want to do over commanding the lives of others. It seems to be something that growing numbers of Americans incensed with D.C. are coming to terms with themselves. History isn't over, hopefully the past few years of watching Europe and the Middle-East degenerate are uncovering this fact.

You guys wouldn't put up with it in Europe, why should we?

[Greyblades]

I need to start voting Democrat. Obviously my GOP leanings have been sapping my mind. Nobody can look at a conservative agenda and believe in it unless they are a drooling idiot.

:dizzy2:
Is this sarcastic?


we are a nation founded on revolting against a 10% tax rate instated by a government thousands of miles away
Uh...you serious? I mean as much as my nationality makes me want to say "the americans were unjustified in thier revolution" we did a bit more than institute a 10% tax rate.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Is this sarcastic?


Uh...you serious? I mean as much as my nationality makes me want to say "the americans were unjustified in thier revolution" we did a bit more than institute a 10% tax rate.

Hmm, you mean like sending armed soldiers into the home of non-violent citizens (http://www.cato.org/raidmap)? (this (https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/who_will_protect_you_from_the_police_the_rise_of_government_sanctioned/)). General warrants affecting the whole of the populace? Warrant-less searches & seizures? Limitless surveillance?
Imposition of massive tax rates from afar, hyper-violent enforcement of minor violations, excessive educational mandates; we are either at the place or approaching rapidly.

[Greyblades]

Go on.

Dude, just look it up. http://americanhistory.about.com/od/revolutionarywar/a/amer_revolution.htm
It wasnt one 10% tax it was a culmination of many acts of parliament made in an attempt to regain all the money spent in the french indian war, when the americans protested with actions like the boston tea party more acts were given to punish the protestors which in turn inspired more and more serious protests. Both sides kept escalating the situation until it devolved into open rebellion.

Seriously until you get to the point where texans trying to buy granite or something end up getting a better price by importing from alaska than from a quarry 2 towns over because of taxes you really shouldnt be complaining.
Hell, the 3rd amendment was in response to british soldiers being forced upon american colonists.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Dude, just look it up. http://americanhistory.about.com/od/revolutionarywar/a/amer_revolution.htm
It wasnt one 10% tax it was a culmination of many acts of parliament made in an attempt to regain all the money spent in the french indian war, when the americans protested with actions like the boston tea party more acts were given to punish the protestors which in turn inspired more and more serious protests. Both sides kept escalating the situation until it devolved into revolt.

Yes, I am aware.

[Greyblades]

...Then why did you tell me to go on?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Expression: "Go On" (http://www.yourdictionary.com/go-on)
Interjection

Expresses surprise, disbelief or incredulity.

[Greyblades]

You know I cant hear sarcasm through the internet right? Regardless, you want to talk survielance you gotta talk patriot act, not obama. You want to talk High taxes you gotta talk Bush's recession, not the democrats, you want to talk home invasion... well you get the idea. Point is these people who are advocating violent uprisings and impeachment were conspicuously silent over the last decade and are only now speaking because it is in thier interests to put down thier rivals now they are in power, not because they actually give a toss, and you really shouldnt be convincing yourself otherwise. Of course that doesnt make him wrong It just makes his concern, and by extention yours, a bit suspect.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You know I cant hear sarcasm through the internet right? Regardless, you want to talk survielance you gotta talk patriot act, not obama. You want to talk High taxes you gotta talk Bush's recession, not the democrats, you want to talk home invasion... well you get the idea. Point is these people who are advocating violent uprisings and impeachment were conspicuously silent over the last decade and are only now speaking because it is in thier interests to put down thier rivals now they are in power, not because they actually give a toss, and you really shouldnt be convincing yourself otherwise. Of course that doesnt make him wrong It just makes his, and by extention yours, concern a bit suspect.

No, I had no idea that your couldn't hear the sarcasm.

Classic argument, "you never complained when your guy was doing it, why are you complaining now that our guy is doing it". Never ending cycle. Most of us were caught by surprise that the government believes the Patriot act gave them authority to have secret laws and warrant-less mass surveillance of US citizens. One of the major proponents of the law says that those permissions were never and could never have been granted under the protections enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and most certainly weren't implied under the bill that was passed.

[Strike For The South]

Booby Jindals state is a shithole and he is only good for when the GOP wants to trot out its brown bigrade

[ICantSpellDawg]

Booby Jindals state is a shithole and he is only good for when the GOP wants to trot out its brown bigrade

How are sentiments where you are? Coming to terms with expanding government or becoming more hostile?

[Strike For The South]

How are sentiments where you are? Coming to terms with expanding government or becoming more hostile?

Texas likes expanding government in the form of massive AG subsidies, militiriazed borders, and a forigen policy that keeps the bases over.

The same old boys out in the Permian basin were HOWLING for the feds help in the 80s when the wells hit a lull. Its just funny how their tune changes when they are making the money

Not like any of it matters, the old boys up in Austin are about to have start making some serious concessions to a Hispanic community that has been criminally neglected.

The people yipping about expanding government will be dead in 20 years, This is a generational rather than an ideological struggle

[Greyblades]

Classic argument, "you never complained when your guy was doing it, why are you complaining now that our guy is doing it". Never ending cycle.

Classic arguments have thier place. When someone makes that argument it means (or at least implies) that the accused doesnt mind the problem when his side is in power or in fact may even want the problem to exist.

Jindal is obviously guilty of this and is not to be trusted to actually fix it. Jindal, Perry and thier ilk will grandstand, moan, and make a big show that the president is doing nothing while avoiding giving actual support to fixing the problem until a republican assumes office once again. Upon which they will forget the problem even existed until the next time the republicans lose POTUS.

He is poison to the cause you are apparantly supporting and everything he says has been said by many others more honest in thier intent. I assume you would understand why I would be skeptical of your own integrity when it appears it took his words to draw you to pushing this agenda.


Most of us were caught by surprise that the government believes the Patriot act gave them authority to have secret laws and warrant-less mass surveillance of US citizens. One of the major proponents of the law says that those permissions were never and could never have been granted under the protections enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and most certainly weren't implied under the bill that was passed.

Well of course you were caught by surprise: most of the congressmen didnt read it when they signed it! And when they did, the republicans still didn't give a shit until after Obama came into office. That a good portion of the democrats dont give a shit about it now just adds to my disillusionment with the entire political system.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I decide to leave my apartment for 3 days to attend MLG Anaheim and this thread happens.

[Ironside]

I need to start voting Democrat. Obviously my GOP leanings have been sapping my mind. Nobody can look at a conservative agenda and believe in it unless they are a drooling idiot.

:dizzy2:

The current problem is more that the Republicans got a influencial faction that treats realism and sanity as treason. They have to be appeased, or they vote in a real nutter.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Its not THE GOVERNMENT its actually thousands of myriad agencies. In the USA there are over 90,000 distinct governments. The agencies the Tea Party has the biggest problems with (FDA, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, and so on) have way less power on the national stage than most of the groups funding campaigns to dismantle them! Its not black and white, and smaller government crusades are almost entirely misguided at the most fundamental levels.

You are correct that referring it to as though it were a single entity is, at best, a convenient shorthand. Government is a byzantine concatenation of bureaus, agencies, programs, and regulations -- most with their own organizational political agendae and half or more of them unaware of what the other pieces are doing.

I am an avid fan of downsizing this ouroboric beast, but you are VERY much correct that efforts to do so, to date, are usually better intentioned than thought out.

The government we have is an accretion developed over more than a century and cannot be pruned back with two quick pieces of legislation and a rousing "huzzah!"



And yes, to those of you who were in doubt about post #23. the eye-rolling smiley was supposed to indicate sarcasm.

[Fisherking]

That would be because it is a single enmity. It is called the executive branch. Each and every one of them headed by a political appointee.

Those agencies are the creation of a vast network of regulations primarily designed to help government favored business interests.

Contrary to what you may think those huge business corporations corrupting the government are not the result of a competitive economy. They are the result of government intervention, regulation, and controls which favored those corporations or their owners, who were politically connected.

[ICantSpellDawg]

That would be because it is a single enmity. It is called the executive branch. Each and every one of them headed by a political appointee.

Those agencies are the creation of a vast network of regulations primarily designed to help government favored business interests.

Contrary to what you may think those huge business corporations corrupting the government are not the result of a competitive economy. They are the result of government intervention, regulation, and controls which favored those corporations or their owners, who were politically connected.

I assume that you meant "entity", but just in case you have been using a word incorrectly I am bringing it up. This is not to be petty, I appreciate when people correct my usage which will aid me in argument in the real world.

[Fisherking]

I've always been a fan of downsizing the wastefulness and byzantine-ness (heh) of government, but the way the right goes about it is something I find morally abhorrent. All the agencies I listed off are vital for keeping corporate monsters out of the system, and they need more funding, not less. Not to mention what the tea party would do to social welfare programs if they could!

There's not a single small-government movement out there that isn't either anti-poor, or so poorly thought out that they are anti-poor without realizing it. De-regulation is only a backdoor to more extreme corporate welfare.

*The corruption in government comes from the outside. After decades of a lawmaker ---> lobbyist ----> $$$ career map for countless lawmakers and presidential appointees from both sides, and the seeming total subversion of the supreme court on the issue of defining bribery and corruption, it can be hard to tell the difference. These are all problems of big corporations and massively rich individual donors being able to reach in with impunity. To attack it you need strict laws, harsh regulation, and maybe even a constitutional amendment to deal with the fact that the supreme court's definition of bribery is too narrow to enforce in a world of SuperPACs. The Dems benefit probably more than the republicans from this system, but what the far right wants to do would only make it worse! And they'd screw the poor while they were at it! Its absurd, and I can't respect the position.

You know, I am some what left of center and no advocate of unregulated free trade but people should have the sense to see what is before their eyes and stop swallowing the trip passed out by which ever party you think is representing you.

The primary reason in the US for business regulation to include their anti-trust laws is to prop up prices for favored sectors of the economy and to help their corporate buddies.

That brings in a lot of campaign donations but it hurts everyone who is not the beneficiary of the government largess.

As for the Tea Party, you have much more in common than you have differences. The left has always been prone to eating their own but they are a threat to the establishment rather than to the public. But you swallow the load they give you.

Remember who voted to defund the NSA? It was Tea Party types on the right and civil libertarians on the left. Who defeated the issue? The rank and file hacks from both parties that talk the party line and never deliver anything to the people.

You are a willing pawn of the established order. When will you see?

One thing I will give you, however, is that any government legislation title usually does the opposite of what the title claims.

[Ironside]

That would be because it is a single enmity. It is called the executive branch. Each and every one of them headed by a political appointee.

Those agencies are the creation of a vast network of regulations primarily designed to help government favored business interests.

Contrary to what you may think those huge business corporations corrupting the government are not the result of a competitive economy. They are the result of government intervention, regulation, and controls which favored those corporations or their owners, who were politically connected.

I'm not sure how that's supposed to improve the situation. That some companies have a corrupting streak and prefers to eliminate the compitition through unfair means are the default position, goverment or not. Claiming otherwise is fundamentally missing out on the basics on competition.

That means that you have to have a regulating body with enforcement powers, that those companies will try to corrupt. Also known as the current situation.

[Fisherking]

I'm not sure how that's supposed to improve the situation. That some companies have a corrupting streak and prefers to eliminate the compitition through unfair means are the default position, goverment or not. Claiming otherwise is fundamentally missing out on the basics on competition.

That means that you have to have a regulating body with enforcement powers, that those companies will try to corrupt. Also known as the current situation.

That is just the point. Government only provides corrupt trade practices. If companies eliminate one another there is no problem until there is a monopoly and without government intervention that is not likely to occur.

Businesses may require product safety regulation etc but in the US it is more about corporate welfare and price supports.

It is much closer to mercantilism than it is to capitalism.

[Fisherking]

Dude, it's really as simple as the stance on the poor. I grew up in poverty, thanks to the Army I'm mostly out of it now. All my friends have food stamps, and they all need them. If the tea party had a sensible stance on social welfare, I'd support them. But they don't, in fact the main support for the Tea Party are the sorts of people who think people are poor because they somehow deserve it, sprinkled in with bitter rednecks and white trash who just want to burn the whole thing down. That, I won't support.


I understand the emotion of the issue. The thing is that the Tea Party only stands for a few issues and is not a united body. Their political views are only half formed.

People don’t hate the poor. Most are just about as poor as you. But those further to the right resent a paid underclass and see it as keeping people dependant on government.

That is a topic for its own thread.

[Fisherking]

Ya, that's an abhorrent view that is worth fighting wherever it is found. The Tea Party is rife with that sentiment, and its backers are empowered by it. You see this is a minor part of the Tea Party, but you're wrong. It is a cultural norm within most of the Tea Party, not brought up because it is a given.

Here is a big assumption on your part however that they want to do nothing, which I have not found to be the case.

I have heard a negative income tax (minimum income for all) and various training and support ideas. The main objective being no permanent underclass.

Decent ideas lost by coverage of people shouting about welfare queens.

In the meantime in other parts of the country people are understanding that Occupy and Tea Party have most of the same goals in mind.

[Kadagar_AV]

I understand the emotion of the issue. The thing is that the Tea Party only stands for a few issues and is not a united body. Their political views are only half formed.

People don’t hate the poor. Most are just about as poor as you. But those further to the right resent a paid underclass and see it as keeping people dependant on government.

That is a topic for its own thread.

I read somewhere that Walmart employees got state subsidiaries for more than 2 billion usd... The same year Walmart went + 17 billions...

Maybe the companies should start paying their employees wages they can actually live on.

[Idaho]

The very concept of the "revolutionary right" is fascist. Rich, privileged people wanting to subvert democracy because they fear their views and status are in danger of being overlooked, or possibly vetoed by the democratic mass. They are backed by big business, and their leaders are funded by big business.

Fascism in Europe developed in the same way under the same threats. The rising revolutionary movements of the left. Of people fighting against the concentration of wealth - of 5% owning 95%. At the same time as this left wing protest were right wing protests. The fascists (backed by media tycoons, lords, big businesses) claimed that democracy wasn't working, and that this concentration of wealth was because of Jews and communists. At the time the two groups probably appeared to have common ground in discontent with the world as it is. Just as the Tea baggers and occupy seem to have a common thread now.

But don't be fooled. One is reactionary, built by the powers that be, and is highjacking the rightful discontent to foist fascism upon us. Yeah, laugh away, but remember that the fascists were considered just a fringe source of outrage - right up to, and including 1933.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You don't need a "right to revolution" - it is extra constitutional. We have a right to arm for it, but fully expect to cross the Rubicon if push comes to shove. The government, however, has a right to quell insurrection and secure people and their property from violent criminality.

The second amendment is a right to prepare for warranted and popular insurrection, but not a right to engage in it. Does that make sense? It is where law and natural rights get fuzzy.

[HopAlongBunny]

Don't Americans ever tire of someones Nietzschean "will to power" clothed in the wool of the lamb?

[Fisherking]

There are lots of reasonable tea-partiers, but they don't set the agenda. At best "moderate" tea party types will talk about long-term reform of the institutions that surround employment and secondary education, they see these things in terms of social engineering in a dispassionate way, at best. You show me a Tea Party caucus at any level that's willing to put a $15 min. wage on the table, and I'll eat my shoe. Well, figuratively eat my shoe.

Look, I am with you on paying a living wage. It is just that you can’t set a minimum wage that is going to work. No matter how much you may wish it politics does not void economics. Wage and price controls don’t work in the long run. My divergence from the free traders is that I believe that businesses have to be socially responsible, pay a decent wage, and bring value to the community other than political donations.

To me the largest political divide is not left and right but authoritarian vs. individual rights and liberties.



The very concept of the "revolutionary right" is fascist. Rich, privileged people wanting to subvert democracy because they fear their views and status are in danger of being overlooked, or possibly vetoed by the democratic mass. They are backed by big business, and their leaders are funded by big business.

Fascism in Europe developed in the same way under the same threats. The rising revolutionary movements of the left. Of people fighting against the concentration of wealth - of 5% owning 95%. At the same time as this left wing protest were right wing protests. The fascists (backed by media tycoons, lords, big businesses) claimed that democracy wasn't working, and that this concentration of wealth was because of Jews and communists. At the time the two groups probably appeared to have common ground in discontent with the world as it is. Just as the Tea baggers and occupy seem to have a common thread now.

But don't be fooled. One is reactionary, built by the powers that be, and is highjacking the rightful discontent to foist fascism upon us. Yeah, laugh away, but remember that the fascists were considered just a fringe source of outrage - right up to, and including 1933.

Here you assume everyone on the right is authoritarian. There are authoritarians left and right. To me there is little difference between living under a Stalinist government or a Nazi government. We are already living under a fascist managed economy. Government laws which protect some businesses at the expense of the less politically connected is exactly where we are today.

Again, the most important divide is not left and right it is authoritarian and libertarian.

I want to make my own decisions. I do not want to be property of the state managed for the greatest public benefit.

[Ironside]

That is just the point. Government only provides corrupt trade practices. If companies eliminate one another there is no problem until there is a monopoly and without government intervention that is not likely to occur.

Businesses may require product safety regulation etc but in the US it is more about corporate welfare and price supports.

It is much closer to mercantilism than it is to capitalism.

You're missing the fundamentals of competition. There's 3 levels of it. There's fair play. There's self cheating (think doping), and there's destructive play (think poisoning your compeditors).

You don't want the two last ones. Does companies try to abuse the laws to get this space? Yes. Why? Because they're forbidden to do this otherwise, by the same lawmakers. The Rockefellers of the world aren't allowed to use his methods anymore (due to a stronger goverment).
Electrical companies can only properly compete if the grid is declared neutral, (not very free). Some markets aren't very monopolic in nature, some are.

That means that a "hands-off" method will create monopolies in some markets. So my suggestion of higher vigilance in preventing the companies to abuse the law has one problem, while your's about the free market fixing everything, except when it doesn't, has another.

Do you think the Koch brothers are funding libertarians and supporting gutting out the state because they believe in libertarian policies? (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-solar-kochs-20140420-story.html#page=1) Or is it to abuse those movements to get more money?


Look, I am with you on paying a living wage. It is just that you can’t set a minimum wage that is going to work. No matter how much you may wish it politics does not void economics. Wage and price controls don’t work in the long run. My divergence from the free traders is that I believe that businesses have to be socially responsible, pay a decent wage, and bring value to the community other than political donations.

To me the largest political divide is not left and right but authoritarian vs. individual rights and liberties.


That's nice. Of course free markets promotes psychopathic behavior (that's why they're so common as CEO:s). So don't expect companies to become socially responsible by natural means. And since the US hate unions, you can't get to union/company salary negotiations (to be fair, it took a while before both parts agreed to do proper negotiations, rather than trying to impose on the other). Sweden got no minimum wage btw. Not needed by law, since the unions do the control if companies step out of line and undercuts the salary.

[Fisherking]

Trickle down economics is a total fraud, and that's the only argument people have against raising the minimum wage. The working poor have a right to demand an increase in their wages, especially when wall street is breaking records! This is why I can't take you so-called libertarians seriously, you casually deny a living wage to people who totally deserve it based on bogus arguments invented by the very people and corporate entities you claim to be against.



You misunderstand.

I am not talking about trickle down. But setting an artificial wage in numbers doesn’t work.

It should be a portion of the profit from the business. The more successful the business the higher the wage. Look at Costco for an example. There should be no corporate boss making $60 million and paying employees $7.00 an hour. Earnings should be tied to profitability and employee contributions to that profit. Beyond that base subsistence, training, and even micro loans for business startups should be provided.

There will always be poor but we should do everything to reduce their numbers and earnings disparities.

If your way worked I would be in favor of it. It just doesn’t. It just reduces the number of jobs and or drives up prices leaving everyone just where they started.

People need to do what works and not just what sounds good. You want philosophy to trump science and it just doesn’t work that way.

Get a grounding in economics.

[Sir Moody]

You misunderstand.

I am not talking about trickle down. But setting an artificial wage in numbers doesn’t work.

It should be a portion of the profit from the business. The more successful the business the higher the wage. Look at Costco for an example. There should be no corporate boss making $60 million and paying employees $7.00 an hour. Earnings should be tied to profitability and employee contributions to that profit. Beyond that base subsistence, training, and even micro loans for business startups should be provided.

There will always be poor but we should do everything to reduce their numbers and earnings disparities.

If your way worked I would be in favor of it. It just doesn’t. It just reduces the number of jobs and or drives up prices leaving everyone just where they started.

People need to do what works and not just what sounds good. You want philosophy to trump science and it just doesn’t work that way.

Get a grounding in economics.

how exactly are you going to make companies follow this without law and Government to step in when they inevitable don't?

[Fisherking]

You're missing the fundamentals of competition. There's 3 levels of it. There's fair play. There's self cheating (think doping), and there's destructive play (think poisoning your compeditors).

You don't want the two last ones. Does companies try to abuse the laws to get this space? Yes. Why? Because they're forbidden to do this otherwise, by the same lawmakers. The Rockefellers of the world aren't allowed to use his methods anymore (due to a stronger goverment).
Electrical companies can only properly compete if the grid is declared neutral, (not very free). Some markets aren't very monopolic in nature, some are.

That means that a "hands-off" method will create monopolies in some markets. So my suggestion of higher vigilance in preventing the companies to abuse the law has one problem, while your's about the free market fixing everything, except when it doesn't, has another.

Do you think the Koch brothers are funding libertarians and supporting gutting out the state because they believe in libertarian policies? (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-solar-kochs-20140420-story.html#page=1) Or is it to abuse those movements to get more money?



That's nice. Of course free markets promotes psychopathic behavior (that's why they're so common as CEO:s). So don't expect companies to become socially responsible by natural means. And since the US hate unions, you can't get to union/company salary negotiations (to be fair, it took a while before both parts agreed to do proper negotiations, rather than trying to impose on the other). Sweden got no minimum wage btw. Not needed by law, since the unions do the control if companies step out of line and undercuts the salary.

Look, I am not saying there should be no laws regarding fair compaction. I don’t favor a total free market.

I am skeptical of large moneyed interests intervening to get their way. But stronger government is not necessary to prevent the abuses. Stronger government only infringe upon personal liberties.

If you have studied the histories of government interventions you would know that they have never favored fair competition. They have been used as price supports for favored industries or individual companies or corporations. They favor the rich and not the people.

If regulation causes prices to rise or supply to decrease to the level of shortage then I don’t see it as a good thing. I don’t necessarily favor less government regulation I just favor it at lower levels in government. I favor a more decentralized government where it is easier for the people to have a voice over one all powerful central government ignoring the will of the people to favor their rich benefactors.

If I don’t like local government I can try to change it or move some place I like better. If I don’t like a huge central government it gets much, much more difficult to have an impact or to avoid it.

I don’t want a government or anyone else telling me how I must live and what I must do.

A free individual owns himself and his output, which he my contribute to whom ever or what ever his choice.

A slave owes his output to his master who may tell him what he may keep. Just where do you think most of us stand today?

[Fisherking]

I really question which of us has the lesser grounding, frankly. Let's review some facts:

1.) Wall Street has hit record highs recently, with the DOW among others breaking their own records several times in the last year.
2.) Adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage is lower than it was in the '70s.
3.) A major factor in our slow economic recovery is a lack of purchasing power on part of the consumer. Power the consumer could have if big business had to pay a living wage. Instead, unsustainable labor practices are propped up by stop-gap measures like the SNAP program (food stamps) which would organically shrink if people got paid more at work (since its very easy to move up the income bracket slightly and find yourself no longer eligible for SNAP!).

All the facts say a raise in the minimum wage would be a good idea. And even if its not, it is something that the government can do immediately to rectify a great social injustice: the fact that such a significant portion of American workers can barely afford to live in this country. History has proven again and again that you have to pull peoples' teeth to get paid a living wage, I guess inflation works just slow enough for people to just ignore it.

*You might say "But Cube! Big business might be able to afford to pay more (and indeed it might be fair, since they created the problem over decades of predatory hiring practices and unsustainable labor-pool manipulation) but what about small businesses!? Surely they can't afford it!?"

To that I say, you may be right. If the problem is that the rules are so vastly different for big businesses as compared to small businesses, we should be looking at how that was allowed to happen. If the answer is that it happened because of loose regulation and cartel-like behavior by almost every major american employer (and I daresay it might be!), then perhaps more than a minimum wage increase is in order--not less!

I made no distinction between big business or small. If a business can’t pay a living wage to its employees it has no reason to operate.

Setting an arbitrary minimum wage doesn’t work because prices will only rise costs making everyone less money. The guy at the bottom got nothing and everyone else too a hit also. You only inflated pricing or cost jobs. The economy is not better off.

Wall Street is a bad measure of the economy at large. The results of the regulations are what need to be examined. Many laws help to eliminate fair competition. Very many do the exact opposite of what the title purports. Most of this has been going on for the last 150 years. There is a lot more to it than just wages.

Most all of it can be laid at the feet of the central government. You listen to a party line and think these guys are the ones to vote for, they will help, but they never do. They have theirs and you can go :daisy: off!

That is going to have to be addressed before we have anything beyond rich and poor. Most all of us will be the poor. Because they are happy to have a permanent underclass that thinks government will be the answer to their problems. Meanwhile they have those lucky enough to have a job, they take their wages to support the underclass, leaving them not much better off than the others. They suffer the same scam using different words with the same results.

It is just divide and rule.

It is up to all of us to break that hold on power and actually have a government of the people and for the people.


Otherwise we are all slaves for ever.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I favor a more decentralized government where it is easier for the people to have a voice over one all powerful central government ignoring the will of the people to favor their rich benefactors.

If I don’t like local government I can try to change it or move some place I like better. If I don’t like a huge central government it gets much, much more difficult to have an impact or to avoid it.

I don’t want a government or anyone else telling me how I must live and what I must do.

A free individual owns himself and his output, which he my contribute to whom ever or what ever his choice.

A slave owes his output to his master who may tell him what he may keep. Just where do you think most of us stand today?

+1000

[Husar]

I would just like to say that indeed Fisherking's idea of tieing wages to company profit or similar measures (such as a measure for shareholder value) of company success is a better idea than a minimum wage.

With a minimum wage you create a temporary fix and will likely increase inflation instead of keeping it low enough so people won't have to care. Companies will see higher costs and adjust their prices to keep the profits and shareholder value they have now (or increase them even). Tieing wages to a measure that reliably represents company success means that if they increase their income they will also increase their labor costs at the same time, not by the same amount, but maybe a certain percentage so that gowth is still incentivized (although a certain upper cap may not hurt actually and could prevent monopole formation).

And no, without a cap it is not punishing success, it is just distributing the success to all who contribute to it. If you do include a cap where being more successful means you generate less profit/shareholder value, then this could be done per branch, so that a clothing company could still become more successful by venturing into the spaceship business. That would actually incentivize innovation, wouldn't it? ~;)

[The Lurker Below]

It only seems inconsistent because you refuse to have a three dimensional view of government.

As Federal government is not here for me (not a rich person), I can only view the government in one dimension, the view that they are spending my money on stuff that isn't for me. So for my money, Bill Clinton set the standard as best president. By that same standard Obama and Bush are the worst presidents of my lifetime, and Bush Sr. stands a distant third.

No takeover of Washing is brewing. However, there seems to be glimpses of hope that someday localities (states) will be recovering some of their authority.

[Fisherking]

GC, this is a topic I am loath to bring up. Most people will make the incorrect assumption that I am anti-immigration, which I am not. I would be just as happy in a world without borders as with a national government. It is just that such a government would have to have strict controls over its powers. That is something lacking most everywhere.

The reason for falling wages is a glut in eligible workers. This is brought about, in part, by illegal immigration. This suppresses wages.

The mantra is that those people take jobs no one else wants. The truth is that if no one took those jobs at the current pay levels than the employer would have to raise wages in order to find staff.

Neither political party has done much to stem the tide of illegal workers. This keeps wages low and makes it difficult to find employment above subsistence levels. It does help employers, especially employers of large corporations with low skill entry levels to higher profits.

It is of value to both political parties. One use the illegals as voters and new members of the underclass and the other uses them as bogymen.

[HopAlongBunny]

A contrarian group that might just test/prove Nader's assertion that what the US really needs is billionaires with "social conscious" to solve America's problem with money in the political sphere:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/24/us-tech-politics-idUSKBN0EZ05920140624

[Beskar]

A contrarian group that might just test/prove Nader's assertion that what the US really needs is billionaires with "social conscious" to solve America's problem with money in the political sphere:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/24/us-tech-politics-idUSKBN0EZ05920140624

They have my vote.

[drone]

A contrarian group that might just test/prove Nader's assertion that what the US really needs is billionaires with "social conscious" to solve America's problem with money in the political sphere:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/24/us-tech-politics-idUSKBN0EZ05920140624

Why not just donate to Wolf PAC? :inquisitive:

[Fisherking]

Illegal Immigration is a boon for the private prison system, and most of the corporations that absolutely deny a living wage! Every time I point out that your ideology is corrupted by big business, you say something like:



That's all fine and dandy, but the Tea Party is still a willing proxy for big business. Throughout this thread you've merely confirmed an ideological bias that I told you was there to begin with. How can your party be for the people, if the first steps towards improving conditions are antithetical to your party? C'mon, man. I don't expect you to come around to my view, but I do expect you to understand why the Tea Party will never appeal to most of us on "the left." And it would be nice if you understood why so many of us see them as almost a counter-popular force, a dangerous reactionary insurrection here to do the far right's bidding in the dumbest way possible.

Adopting a realistic view of the minimum wage will give a massive edge to whichever party fully endorses it first. The dems are tippy-toeing the issue because they still fear those of their own generation who believe in trickle-down, but they'll come around in less than a decade. If the Republicans (hah) or the Tea Party (double-hah!) were to come around first, forcing themselves to adopt a real economic stance instead of just parroting shallow reaganite garbage, they might actually avoid being an opposition party for eternity. :shrug:

You are being silly. I am not Tea Party. Likely I am closer to Occupy people but I know both.

I know full well that there is a government corporate partnership. If someone thinks the ultra rich are in the game because they have a good heart they are fools.

I get the feeling you have only read about half of what I said and jumped to some wild conclusion.

Go back to the political compass and have a look. What does it say on the top and the bottom?

Tell me what the difference is between being ruled by a Stalinist or a Fascist. Have a look at the positions of Bush and Obama.

You are so worried about left and right and ignore up and down. From my read we have more in common with Milton Friedman than Obama. Hillary is closer to Romney than she is to you. But you would vote for her because she says she is from the left.

I fall left between Mandela and the Dalai Lama but over 5 points south. But you see me as a right winger.

Hopeless!
:disappointed:

[ICantSpellDawg]

I would just like to say that indeed Fisherking's idea of tieing wages to company profit or similar measures (such as a measure for shareholder value) of company success is a better idea than a minimum wage.

With a minimum wage you create a temporary fix and will likely increase inflation instead of keeping it low enough so people won't have to care. Companies will see higher costs and adjust their prices to keep the profits and shareholder value they have now (or increase them even). Tieing wages to a measure that reliably represents company success means that if they increase their income they will also increase their labor costs at the same time, not by the same amount, but maybe a certain percentage so that gowth is still incentivized (although a certain upper cap may not hurt actually and could prevent monopole formation).

And no, without a cap it is not punishing success, it is just distributing the success to all who contribute to it. If you do include a cap where being more successful means you generate less profit/shareholder value, then this could be done per branch, so that a clothing company could still become more successful by venturing into the spaceship business. That would actually incentivize innovation, wouldn't it? ~;)

Profit sharing would be a better mandate than a minimum wage, although it would just create an outsourcing situation where the profit shows up in the umbrella company, but the bulk of the employees work for a contracting company that works on a shoestring. Laws would need to be passed to eliminate extensive strategy collusion between contractors and contractees, otherwise it is merely loophole.



The mantra is that those people take jobs no one else wants. The truth is that if no one took those jobs at the current pay levels than the employer would have to raise wages in order to find staff.


Sort of - most likely when it comes to low skilled employment the more likely outcome is that the jobs would move to a more "business friendly/human exploitative" international environment


Illegal Immigration is a boon for the private prison system, and most of the corporations that absolutely deny a living wage! Every time I point out that your ideology is corrupted by big business, you say something like:



That's all fine and dandy, but the Tea Party is still a willing proxy for big business. Throughout this thread you've merely confirmed an ideological bias that I told you was there to begin with. How can your party be for the people, if the first steps towards improving conditions are antithetical to your party? C'mon, man. I don't expect you to come around to my view, but I do expect you to understand why the Tea Party will never appeal to most of us on "the left." And it would be nice if you understood why so many of us see them as almost a counter-popular force, a dangerous reactionary insurrection here to do the far right's bidding in the dumbest way possible.


Eh - you confuse the TEA party with Low Tax/Pro Business types. In my experience the TEA party positions are much more populist than that and I think that you are doing yourself a dis-service in equating the two. The reality is that, while the TEA party may be co-opted by the mainstream Republican causes, it is much more blue collar and populist in outlook and the GOP knows this - hence their concerns




You are so worried about left and right and ignore up and down. From my read we have more in common with Milton Friedman than Obama. Hillary is closer to Romney than she is to you. But you would vote for her because she says she is from the left.


Yep

[ICantSpellDawg]

As Federal government is not here for me (not a rich person), I can only view the government in one dimension, the view that they are spending my money on stuff that isn't for me. So for my money, Bill Clinton set the standard as best president. By that same standard Obama and Bush are the worst presidents of my lifetime, and Bush Sr. stands a distant third.

No takeover of Washing is brewing. However, there seems to be glimpses of hope that someday localities (states) will be recovering some of their authority.

Hey, that would be a start

[Ironside]

Look, I am not saying there should be no laws regarding fair compaction. I don’t favor a total free market.

I am skeptical of large moneyed interests intervening to get their way. But stronger government is not necessary to prevent the abuses. Stronger government only infringe upon personal liberties.

It depends very much on how the goverment is formed and how it acts. A goverment can be formed for its people or against its people. The Swedish goverment are stronger than the US goverment. Yet it is towards the lower left in the political compass. It's more free.

Take taxes, that form of slavery (that all are legally forced to be in) you mention. Does paying taxes for free higher education increase or decrease your freedom? Increase, since the financial situation of your parents affect you less.
Paying for social security? Increase, since you don't have to take care of your parents if they've never been able to have very good finances.
Paying for public healthcare and sick leave? Increase, since you don't have to worry for financial ruin when getting sick.

That's the paradox of freedom, reducing a selective few freedoms increases it more in others.

Are the US goverment too much in the pockets of the big companies? Yes. But less goverment is by itself far from a solution. It could very well make the problem worse. Those companies and their money doesn't disappear. And that cooperating oligarcic structure will remain.


If you have studied the histories of government interventions you would know that they have never favored fair competition. They have been used as price supports for favored industries or individual companies or corporations. They favor the rich and not the people.

Goverment intervation is a mixed bag. What they always have is an agenda. Even when the agenda is free market. That's very obvious when breaking up monopolies for the sake if it, the results be damned (sometimes it works, sometimes you end up with worse service for higher prices).

The problem in the US is that the companies set or have heavy influence on the agenda. That can easily happen, but it's not a default situation.


I don’t necessarily favor less government regulation I just favor it at lower levels in government. I favor a more decentralized government where it is easier for the people to have a voice over one all powerful central government ignoring the will of the people to favor their rich benefactors.

It's a tricky odd one. Generally people seem to care less about their local goverment, than the national one. Bobby Jindal would probably not be elected if people really cared. It's a good one, but as always, you'll need an upper structure to take care of the things that can't be properly solved on the local level.

[Papewaio]

http://mobile.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-06/costco-ceo-craig-jelinek-leads-the-cheapest-happiest-company-in-the-world
Costco wants the minimum wage increased. They pay on average $20/hr which is $8/hr more then Walmart.

The Costco CEO is on $325k per year.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I've always believed that government is merely a balance of powerful interests. That Western governments have become more "Democratic" over the past 300 years is a fashion rather than a long term trend, related to the elevation of "human beings" generally as a powerful interest group - unique to the modern era.

Concepts of voting and self government are merely mechanisms that powerful interests have to convince people that government is already theirs, so they don't need continue to fight it with arms or widespread civil unrest. I argue that the only protection of the rights of people is through real power; superlative education, combined strategic efforts, economic growth in assets and property, and stockpiling of civilian held arms. Thee agenda of pre-extant powers is to relieve us of these things in order to return to a world where we are once again chaff and chattle. They are succeeding again, and all of the digital technology and progress in the world shouldn't conceal this.

We need interests groups that are powerful advocates and we need to train our minds and bodies for the everlasting power struggle. Don't let them convince you that they will protect you anymore than the cows are fattened for slaughter. Our rights were enshrined for this age and this fight, they are not relics but transcendent principles reflecting man's abusive nature.

Marx has always been spot-on in his diagnosis - but dead wrong in his therapeutic prescription.

[Fisherking]

GC I am not dismissing your point of view, you are dismissing everything else.

I suggest building coalitions of key interests. You say no one else is like you so there are no grounds to do that. That only leaves marginalization, which means that nothing changes.

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/10_Principles_of_Economics

There are several schools of thought in economics. You can call them right or left if it suits you but they are more about liberal and control.

The economics practiced in America are very close to those practiced in Germany of the 1930s and 40s. You may buy private property but government tells you what you can do with it. I don’t see this as freedom.

Now, I didn’t disagree in principal that the minim wage was bad. What I said was that it doesn’t work. It is an inflationary process that robs you of the benefits you are trying to get if the company passes those cost along rather than taking it out of profit. They may or may not have to profit to allow them to absorb that cost. If they don’t they have only a few choices, pass it on, reduce workers, or go out of business. The only way around that is to have a totally managed economy where everything has set prices. Of course you can’t manage the price of imported commodities so if their cost goes up then products needing them will stop being made. Also every time it has been tried it has failed.

Minimum Wage was not an economic decision, it was a political one and they knew it wouldn’t work when they started it. But it made people feel good and it looked like politicians cared. Then there was the bale out. Who did that help? Did it fix the economy? It was bipartisan.

And do pray tell me what is right wing about a guaranteed minimum income and wages tied to profit vs. minim wage, food stamps and welfare?

Ironside the US Constitution was founded on limited government. It is now unlimited government and we need to hit the reset button. It has very limited powers granted by the constitution but has gained massive overreach. That has to be addressed at a fundamental level.

The history of it would fill books but instead of a party for small weak government and a party of strong central government and the elite, we not have two parties of the elite and strong government.

The problem to be overcome is to get people to see what they do and not just listen to what they say.

Now, there are grassroots movements who identify with left and right who want a change. They have more in common with each other than they do with the power structure of the government. The power structure is doing all it can to co-opt them or demonize them and keep them apart.

People succoring to the propaganda.

[HoreTore]

Marx has always been spot-on in his diagnosis - but dead wrong in his therapeutic prescription.

Out of curiosity:

What was Marx' diagnosis, and what was his prescription?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Out of curiosity:

What was Marx' diagnosis, and what was his prescription?

Power struggle leading to worker exploitation to benefit of the few

Communism where human dignity maintained through respect for the needs of workers through active suppression of those who would wield power over them

[Beskar]

I fall left between Mandela and the Dalai Lama but over 5 points south. But you see me as a right winger

I think Political Compass is rather inaccurate, take a look at this.

https://i.imgur.com/uflqWMm.jpg

edit: Put Fisher in the wrong position, missed 5 points south part, doh.

[ICantSpellDawg]

What the heck.
I'm to the extreme left of Dave Miliband? I just spent 45 minutes giving tribute to my passionate hatred of American poor in another thread.

[Beskar]

Did you dig up old political compass posts for that? Lol

Yes.

Except for Fisher, put him in between Llama and Ghandi, he is as south as you.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Notice how far to the left we all are from Obama. :shrug: What's important to remember about the political compass is that even though it adds another axis, its still trying to arbitrarily graph something that's not very easily graphed. It goes out of its way to only use the actions* of politicians, without guessing at their inner beliefs.. while trying to match your inner beliefs without forcing to concede to reality, like the politicians its comparing you to have had to do. It is very hard to actually compare two peoples' politics. See myself and @Fisherking (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/member.php?u=10953), for example. The only real difference is that I believe any "New Deal" that doesn't immediately lift the mass of impoverished Americans out of their misery is not only not to be accepted, but is actually a total waste of the opportunity being presented. He takes a longer view, but I would argue my view is more just. That's hard to graph.

*(or particularly outspoken speech that remains consistent throughout time, which you'll never get from modern politicians anyway)


I am a rather "conservative" Roman Catholic who rejects a robust legal system and supports small and localized minarchist government, while believing in international structural poverty relief (and loathing the American poor), encouraging military aid to overthrow nearly every non-western, human rights abusing government. I also want to legalize nearly everything, especially guns, prostitution, drugs, and "Tiger Selfies" (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/new-york-state-bans-people-3751142). Personally, I have no idea where I am on that chart.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Out of curiosity:

What was Marx' diagnosis, and what was his prescription?

You never criticized my failure to understand the basics of Marxism. What's the deal? Are you feeling well?

[a completely inoffensive name]

The US Constitution can be for very limited government or it can be for very large government, just depends on your interpretation. What it specifies clearly is that whatever size we interpret it to be, the power is not collected among one position or organization but that there is a separation of powers to balance out various factions. When we defend the Constitution and invoke our allegiance to it, we are not declaring ourselves beholden to the personal views of a select few US citizens in the 1780s but to the rule of law which seeks to satisfy the citizens needs whether they be big or small in a way that protects as many as possible from abuse.

[Ironside]

Ironside the US Constitution was founded on limited government. It is now unlimited government and we need to hit the reset button. It has very limited powers granted by the constitution but has gained massive overreach. That has to be addressed at a fundamental level.

The history of it would fill books but instead of a party for small weak government and a party of strong central government and the elite, we not have two parties of the elite and strong government.

The problem to be overcome is to get people to see what they do and not just listen to what they say.

The US and the world is different than it was 1787. Looking back on it as a reset button is the wrong way to look at it. What it is good to looking back on is that it's supposed to prevent power abuse from the goverment. A modern extension is to also protect its citizens. That's still controversial for some Americans, but the thing is that the society is built on that now, and that removing this would be disastrous.

So a natural extended mission for the state is to protect its citizen from power abuse, both from the state itself and from other sources. Agreed?

Both you and GC wants to reduce the power abuse. But you disagree on the methods. And yours about gutting out most of the power in the goverment (because having no power means that you can't abuse power) is fairly radical.
One problem with a radical method is that it won't normally get a general support. Thus creating strife, but changing nothing (outside revolutions and similar). A second common problem is that it's not a solution, but a gamble. Do this radical action, causing major changes and the problem will dissolve by itself and no new problems will arise. Sounds probable...

As you said, both left and right can agree on some issues. But both need to identify the problem properly and accept that the solution to that will most likely not the their solution.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The US and the world is different than it was 1787. Looking back on it as a reset button is the wrong way to look at it. What it is good to looking back on is that it's supposed to prevent power abuse from the goverment. A modern extension is to also protect its citizens. That's still controversial for some Americans, but the thing is that the society is built on that now, and that removing this would be disastrous.

So a natural extended mission for the state is to protect its citizen from power abuse, both from the state itself and from other sources. Agreed?

Both you and GC wants to reduce the power abuse. But you disagree on the methods. And yours about gutting out most of the power in the goverment (because having no power means that you can't abuse power) is fairly radical.
One problem with a radical method is that it won't normally get a general support. Thus creating strife, but changing nothing (outside revolutions and similar). A second common problem is that it's not a solution, but a gamble. Do this radical action, causing major changes and the problem will dissolve by itself and no new problems will arise. Sounds probable...

As you said, both left and right can agree on some issues. But both need to identify the problem properly and accept that the solution to that will most likely not the their solution.

We are not all politicians. Let politicians moderate our views, but pull them in a certain direction. If a big man were to push a car, the car may seem to be moving slowly and cautiously, but the man pushing is probably about to blow a gasket and get a hernia. Such should be the relationship between a representative and his constituents.

[Papewaio]

Some recent historical context of how the world has changed.

"In 1776, the average life expectancy at birth for a U.S. citizen was 35 years. By 1900, life expectancy grew to 47.3 years. By 2002, it climbed to 77.4 years, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. "

World has changed so has the infrastructue and government that supports it.

[Kadagar_AV]

May I address the question weather a hostile takeover is even plausible?

I honestly don't think so.

People are to rooted into being USAnian to agree to having militias controlling Washington. The army would deal with it quickly.

And even if some states wanted to opt out, I am sure they would do that by voting, not by arming up...

Amendments all aside (and I am all for guns), isn't it somewhat of a stupid belief that a hostile takeover of Washington would even be possible in the near future?

[HoreTore]

Some recent historical context of how the world has changed.

"In 1776, the average life expectancy at birth for a U.S. citizen was 35 years. By 1900, life expectancy grew to 47.3 years. By 2002, it climbed to 77.4 years, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. "

World has changed so has the infrastructue and government that supports it.

Much of that is due to infant mortality, though.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Much of that is due to infant mortality, though.

It blew my mind when I saw the stats about this last year. Life expectancy at the point where you are past infancy has budged.

[ICantSpellDawg]

May I address the question weather a hostile takeover is even plausible?

I honestly don't think so.

People are to rooted into being USAnian to agree to having militias controlling Washington. The army would deal with it quickly.

And even if some states wanted to opt out, I am sure they would do that by voting, not by arming up...

Amendments all aside (and I am all for guns), isn't it somewhat of a stupid belief that a hostile takeover of Washington would even be possible in the near future?

I believe that it is. I don't believe that it is likely in the near future, but anything Is possible with enough people on board and a weakened and disreputable enough system.

I would still prefer to be governed by someone like Obama over some of the nuts who detest him. But if things were to get worse on the government side, the opposition would likely gain talent at government's expense.

There is just something that we all find detestable about government. You know the feeling acutely when you are living under those who don't respect you and who you didn't vote for. But especially when you did vote for them.