Calling guard dog and others

[Oblarg]

But even past that, that is a thoroughly terrible definition of freedom, unless you truly believe the epitome of free society is anarchy.

 

Jesus F*****G Christ? You actually think someone living their life as they see fit is anarchy. Are you even familiar with the definition if that word? I am. I saw it first hand in Somalia in 1993 and Kuwaitt in 1991.

 

All I did was take your definition of freedom to its logical conclusion. After all, anarchy would indeed be the minimum amount of government interference.

 

Your view of freedom, as you stated it, is by definition incompatible with the concept of government. If you want to reword it, go right ahead.

That is the same BS you pulled earlier. If I am opposed to one extreme then I must be in favor of the other extreme

 

You very clearly made it an extreme in your definition. You claimed that minimal government interference is freedom. Minimal is an extreme.

 

You might want to reword that.

[Aram]

"Governs least" does sort of imply an extreme. Least being a superlative and all.

[Guard Dog]

I absolutely hate it when people present quotes from authority figures as if they're immutable truths.

I imagine so, especially when these authority figures have opinions you disagree with or cannot refute.

 

I am not arguing for unrestricted government. I do not think that minimizing government will solve our society's problems. Not at all.

 

I never said you were arguing for unlimited government but once you begin empowering government to do things it was never meant to do, that is exactly what you will get. As for your second point, you adn I just disagree and probably always will. There is nothing wrong with that.

[Oblarg]

I absolutely hate it when people present quotes from authority figures as if they're immutable truths.

I imagine so, especially when these authority figures have opinions you disagree with or cannot refute.

 

I am not arguing for unrestricted government. I do not think that minimizing government will solve our society's problems. Not at all.

 

I never said you were arguing for unlimited government but once you begin empowering government to do things it was never meant to do, that is exactly what you will get. As for your second point, you adn I just disagree and probably always will. There is nothing wrong with that.

 

Define what government is "meant to do," then. I think you'll find it's not as clear-cut as you think.

 

You haven't given me any reason to respect the opinions of these authority figures. An opinion is an opinion. I need concrete evidence, not someone's beliefs, no matter how powerful and influential the person.

[Zoraptor]

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Wednesday that she was briefed before the release of a controversial intelligence assessment and that she stands by the report, which lists returning veterans among terrorist risks to the U.S.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/a...wing-extremism/

 

Shows loud and clear what the administration thinks of veterans. I mean after all they voted for McCain by a margin of 16:1

Or perhaps they just remember a certain veteran by the name of Tim McVeigh? He blew up a building in Oklahoma, I believe, along with a bunch of his ex army mates?

[Guard Dog]

As much as I'm am enjoying this, I have to leave for work in three hours. I'll pick this back up when I get home tomorrow night.

[Tigranes]

I'm sure both of you can take care of yourselves, but let's not drive so close to the explosive lines, yeah?

 

I'm as usual an idiot on politics but I am interested in one thing you mention GD - you do think the Tea Party will be a big force in the coming years? And how related is it to the continued political life of Sarah Palin and the inevitable prospect that next election, we will see (a) at least one minority candidate doing the Obama and (b) at least one 'core American' candidate doing the Palin?

[Walsingham]

I've said this before, so I'll just mention it briefly. Governments have two worthy functions:

 

1. To prohibit activity which the people cannot prohibit. For example, I can be against eating melamine in my sweets, but I need a special inspector to search for and detect it. Then I need a justice system to administer the punishment fairly.

2. To engage in collaborative projects of a size and scale - and timescale which woul be totally beyond private institutions. E.g. the space programme, wars, the eradication of polio etc

 

GD, in the friendliest way possible I have to say I find your insistence on a 18th century view of government as nonsensical. The degree of government required to perform the above functions in the age of the steam driven cotton loom is fundamentally inappropriate to the world we now live in. It's a question of space, time, and complexity. Rather like saying "In the 18th century it took the Navy a year to design and make a new ship. We should be able to do the same."

 

However, in an equally friendly way I can understand GD's and Gfted1's* comments that the US government has demonstrated numerous times that it isn't capable of doing its job, and that giving it more money isn't logical. But I would suggest that the solution is not merely to starve it of funds, but to restructure and re-equip it. I'm not sure how, but generically in most engineering/management situations I'd expect that to be the way forward.

 

*Made during our healthcare discussion

[mkreku]

Typical. Obfuscating the obvious when you have no argument. How's this for a definition, living your life with a minimum amount of government interefernce? No Big Brother ordering you to buy health insurance or face jail time. No Big Brother helping itself to 35-50% of what you EARN. No Big Brother sabatoging your investments, telling what kind of car you can drive, telling you you cannot smoke or drink or eat what you please if you choose to. How about not having the government issuing instructions to the police to watch out for 'domestic terrorists" like returning veterans and people with Gadsen Flag sitckers on their cars. How about not worrying the government will seize your home and sell it to someone else because they could earn more tax revenue on it that way? Need I go on?

No Big Brother building infra structure. No Big Brother putting out the fire when your house is burning. No Big Brother trying to catch the criminal that just robbed you. No Big Brother to aid you when you want to have a child. No Big Brother to aid you when your child falls ill. No Big Brother to teach your child the valuables of life. No Big Brother telling that dude in the 18-wheeler that he can't just run over your Mini. No Big Brother interfering when your investments run off to a Caribbean island. No Big Brother trying to evacuate you after your excessive Humvee driving might have flooded your state.

 

No, you need not go on. We all realize what an ignoramus you are.

 

You throw around that Big Brother term without actually knowing what you're talking about. A society is simply people helping each other, but I'm guessing it suits your absurd self image as some sort of Captain America Freedom Fighter to keep calling it Big Brother. Mindless parrot.

[Meshugger]

They had an article in my local newpaper today about the tea-party influencing the republican elections in delaware, or somewhere. They didn't say much about them, except for that they were "ultraconservative". Neither did they write what ultraconservative meant. I am dissapoint.

 

Strange wording though, since "ultra-conservative" means extremely reactionary here. You know, having a king, aristocratic ruling and peasantry and stuff.

 

As a side note, here's a paper about economic growth and percentage of government involvement in GDP: Linky.

 

Tl;dr-version: The more involvement by government, the nation has a either a lesser or even stagnated economic growth, and vice versa, less government involvement in GDP caused greater economic growth. It says nothing about personal freedoms though.

[Meshugger]

Typical. Obfuscating the obvious when you have no argument. How's this for a definition, living your life with a minimum amount of government interefernce? No Big Brother ordering you to buy health insurance or face jail time. No Big Brother helping itself to 35-50% of what you EARN. No Big Brother sabatoging your investments, telling what kind of car you can drive, telling you you cannot smoke or drink or eat what you please if you choose to. How about not having the government issuing instructions to the police to watch out for 'domestic terrorists" like returning veterans and people with Gadsen Flag sitckers on their cars. How about not worrying the government will seize your home and sell it to someone else because they could earn more tax revenue on it that way? Need I go on?

No Big Brother building infra structure. No Big Brother putting out the fire when your house is burning. No Big Brother trying to catch the criminal that just robbed you. No Big Brother to aid you when you want to have a child. No Big Brother to aid you when your child falls ill. No Big Brother to teach your child the valuables of life. No Big Brother telling that dude in the 18-wheeler that he can't just run over your Mini. No Big Brother interfering when your investments run off to a Caribbean island. No Big Brother trying to evacuate you after your excessive Humvee driving might have flooded your state.

 

No, you need not go on. We all realize what an ignoramus you are.

 

You throw around that Big Brother term without actually knowing what you're talking about. A society is simply people helping each other, but I'm guessing it suits your absurd self image as some sort of Captain America Freedom Fighter to keep calling it Big Brother. Mindless parrot.

 

To GD's defence i never saw him berating the firedepartment, the police, school or simple rule of law. Btw, who is "We" in this argument?

Edited September 15, 2010 by Meshugger

[Meshugger]

Personally, i found that goverment should not wander into the area of social engineering. For example highering or lowering taxes depending on buying you first house or apartment, having children and so on. Neither should goverment enforce a certain kind of living: banning the usage of certain substances like drugs and so on. It is simply not the governments role to steer what choices in life should be rewarding for the individual.

[Tale]

I have a hard time reconciling political parties that take the position of "small government" while also taking the position that marriage needs to be regulated and people shouldn't be allowed to build Mosques in their neighborhood.

[Walsingham]

You throw around that Big Brother term without actually knowing what you're talking about. A society is simply people helping each other, but I'm guessing it suits your absurd self image as some sort of Captain America Freedom Fighter to keep calling it Big Brother. Mindless parrot.

 

You're calling a two tour vet, who reads foreign newspapers, and talks at length and coherently a mindless parrot? You think you're a freedom fighter if you demand the right to look at **** on the forum.

[Calax]

Typical. Obfuscating the obvious when you have no argument. How's this for a definition, living your life with a minimum amount of government interefernce? No Big Brother ordering you to buy health insurance or face jail time. No Big Brother helping itself to 35-50% of what you EARN. No Big Brother sabatoging your investments, telling what kind of car you can drive, telling you you cannot smoke or drink or eat what you please if you choose to. How about not having the government issuing instructions to the police to watch out for 'domestic terrorists" like returning veterans and people with Gadsen Flag sitckers on their cars. How about not worrying the government will seize your home and sell it to someone else because they could earn more tax revenue on it that way? Need I go on?

No Big Brother building infra structure. No Big Brother putting out the fire when your house is burning. No Big Brother trying to catch the criminal that just robbed you. No Big Brother to aid you when you want to have a child. No Big Brother to aid you when your child falls ill. No Big Brother to teach your child the valuables of life. No Big Brother telling that dude in the 18-wheeler that he can't just run over your Mini. No Big Brother interfering when your investments run off to a Caribbean island. No Big Brother trying to evacuate you after your excessive Humvee driving might have flooded your state.

 

No, you need not go on. We all realize what an ignoramus you are.

 

You throw around that Big Brother term without actually knowing what you're talking about. A society is simply people helping each other, but I'm guessing it suits your absurd self image as some sort of Captain America Freedom Fighter to keep calling it Big Brother. Mindless parrot.

 

To GD's defence i never saw him berating the firedepartment, the police, school or simple rule of law. Btw, who is "We" in this argument?

Well he did suggest that the government shouldn't be getting tax money. I'd love to know how he expects the government to prop up two wars, social services, treasury, intelligence, transportation, agriculture etc with significantly less taxes coming in.

 

And by "prop up" I mean regulating/ensuring what needs to be done is done

[Hurlshort]

His argument seems more that taxes shouldn't be at 35-50%, which they are for the wealthy in the US. I get the argument, but then I also have trouble sympathizing too much for my buddy who drives a ferrari and lives on a lake. We need to spend smarter, for sure, but I don't believe that just because the government spends money ill-advisedly, they should be cut off.

[Wrath of Dagon]

but then I also have trouble sympathizing too much for my buddy who drives a ferrari and lives on a lake.

Why, do you resent his success?

[Calax]

but then I also have trouble sympathizing too much for my buddy who drives a ferrari and lives on a lake.

Why, do you resent his success?

No, because he has enough money that buying a second gold plated ferarri should be a given even with his taxes.

 

Thats the thing, The upper class demands tax cuts for themselves and somehow expect the government to keep putting programs etc in place for their protection.

[Hurlshort]

but then I also have trouble sympathizing too much for my buddy who drives a ferrari and lives on a lake.

Why, do you resent his success?

 

Actually, I feel sorry for him. Over the years he has become more and more bitter about the taxes he pays. He complains about money and the government almost constantly, and I've avoided hanging out with him for the last while. Money has become a central focus of his life and that seems fairly sad. I know he works hard for his money, I appreciate that, but I wouldn't trade places with him.

 

A couple years ago, my wife and I went to dinner with him and his spouse. I go out to dinner about once a month, given our family budget as teachers with young kids. We went to Indian food and the bill was about $60 for the four of us. We split the bill, but he felt it was necessary to complain about how expensive it was. It put a damper on the evening. It just seems a tacky thing to do. That is the way I feel about a lot of the complaints of the rich. Try to enjoy what you have!

[Nepenthe]

but then I also have trouble sympathizing too much for my buddy who drives a ferrari and lives on a lake.

Why, do you resent his success?

 

Actually, I feel sorry for him. Over the years he has become more and more bitter about the taxes he pays. He complains about money and the government almost constantly, and I've avoided hanging out with him for the last while. Money has become a central focus of his life and that seems fairly sad. I know he works hard for his money, I appreciate that, but I wouldn't trade places with him.

 

A couple years ago, my wife and I went to dinner with him and his spouse. I go out to dinner about once a month, given our family budget as teachers with young kids. We went to Indian food and the bill was about $60 for the four of us. We split the bill, but he felt it was necessary to complain about how expensive it was. It put a damper on the evening. It just seems a tacky thing to do. That is the way I feel about a lot of the complaints of the rich. Try to enjoy what you have!

 

Classy...

[Hiro Protagonist]

I am currently doing research for a paper on protest movements in the American political system taking the so called 'Tea Party' movement as a point of departure. I recall Guard Dog writing something about the role of government in the 2008 bailouts following the housing crash.

 

As this idea of negative government interference in the economy is also very much at the heart of the Tea Party I am looking to identify sources, commentators, analysts, ideologues who believe government was directly or indirectly to blame for the state of affairs which led to the global recession.

 

I see the tea party as the rights answer to the left-wing groups such as the various green/enviromental/animal/socialist/anti-war movements. It's only a natural progression as the right saw the left take more power through these groups.

[Humodour]

I am currently doing research for a paper on protest movements in the American political system taking the so called 'Tea Party' movement as a point of departure. I recall Guard Dog writing something about the role of government in the 2008 bailouts following the housing crash.

 

As this idea of negative government interference in the economy is also very much at the heart of the Tea Party I am looking to identify sources, commentators, analysts, ideologues who believe government was directly or indirectly to blame for the state of affairs which led to the global recession.

 

I see the tea party as the rights answer to the left-wing groups such as the various green/enviromental/animal/socialist/anti-war movements. It's only a natural progression as the right saw the left take more power through these groups.

 

What a bogus answer.

 

Economic libertarianism (purist laissez-faire) is the ideology in question here and it has persisted in America for decades (though luckily it has not spread to the rest of the world in any significant manner). It is not new, and the fact that it is now called the 'Tea Party' movement does not make it a new phenomena.

[Hiro Protagonist]

What a bogus answer.

 

Economic libertarianism (purist laissez-faire) is the ideology in question here and it has persisted in America for decades (though luckily it has not spread to the rest of the world in any significant manner). It is not new, and the fact that it is now called the 'Tea Party' movement does not make it a new phenomena.

 

Not really. What started out as a libertarian movement based on constitutionalist ideals is now being projected as a far right nutjob group through media manipulation. There's nothing 'projected' about people like Christine O'Donnell becoming endorsed nominees.

[NexusPrime]

What a bogus answer.

 

Economic libertarianism (purist laissez-faire) is the ideology in question here and it has persisted in America for decades (though luckily it has not spread to the rest of the world in any significant manner). It is not new, and the fact that it is now called the 'Tea Party' movement does not make it a new phenomena.

 

Not really. What started out as a libertarian movement based on constitutionalist ideals is now being projected as a far right nutjob group through media manipulation. There's nothing 'projected' about people like Christine O'Donnell becoming endorsed nominees.

 

I think the Tea Party got hijacked by Faux News and problem Palin, Glenn Beck, etc. They have nuts and racists coming out of the woodwork. The two-party system is part ofthe problem. The Founding Fathers tried to keep the system from falling into the hands of parties, but it's this mentality that also limits and weakens American democracy. We have two dysfunctional parties that are unable to represent a majority or significant minority of views, and even when one or the other gets control of government, is handicapped by its arrogance and egocentricity, that they're the chosen ones. American voters are disgusted with both and are willing to pitch their votes for anything that seems to oppose the mainstream and offer a return to what was (and can no longer be).

 

btw, hi, haven't been here in ages. I remember and recognize several of you old fogeys here.

Edited September 16, 2010 by NexusPrime

[mkreku]

Btw, who is "We" in this argument?

Anyone who understands what the mutt is really saying.

 

You're calling a two tour vet, who reads foreign newspapers, and talks at length and coherently a mindless parrot? You think you're a freedom fighter if you demand the right to look at **** on the forum.

A parrot is someone repeating stuff without reflecting upon it. How "two tour vet" or reading foreign papers would have any relevance to this is beyond me.

 

I would probably care about the second part of the sentence if I didn't realize I was replying to a guy who'll **** his pants if I folded a piece of paper the wrong way.