Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Are you anti-government?

Page 11 of 15 [ 235 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,576
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

10 Jul 2013, 10:05 pm

RushKing wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Efficient government or government done right is adaptive and doesn't need constant fixing or addition because it promotes local problem solving. No government is really just a short time of anarchy before the game of 'spin-the-bottle' lands on one particular form of tyranny/despotism or another.
Consensus/Direct Democracy (Anarchy) is the most adaptive form of government, the rest are tyranny/despotism.

I meant anarchy in the zero government sense.

As far as consencus/direct democracy - that's fine with me under one condition: that the power is bottom-heavy (ie. local level) with a deposit of rules at the national level that take herculean effort to be added to or subtracted from, that way the federal structure is purely utility rather than Washington DC being the place to be for influence and power. Direct democracy of small groups for towns and cities is a good thought, trying to make that a state.

One of socialism's biggest claims is that if it weren't for national efforts you wouldn't have had a water or sewage infrastructure in France, nor would you have had a national highway system in the US nor Audubon in Germany. Australia then sports its state to state change of railroad track sizes and fittings as a failure of capitalism in public infrastructure. I'd figure paying attention to history and having an educated populace means more than having three hour traffic jams in Fairfax, VA in the morning. Its one thing to say it needs coherent fundraising and oversight, another to say that it'll only work if it's piggy-backed on some national legislation as pork.



RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

10 Jul 2013, 10:27 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
One of socialism's biggest claims is that if it weren't for national efforts you wouldn't have had a water or sewage infrastructure in France, nor would you have had a national highway system in the US nor Audubon in Germany. Australia then sports its state to state change of railroad track sizes and fittings as a failure of capitalism in public infrastructure. I'd figure paying attention to history and having an educated populace means more than having three hour traffic jams in Fairfax, VA in the morning. Its one thing to say it needs coherent fundraising and oversight, another to say that it'll only work if it's piggy-backed on some national legislation as pork.

State Socialists

I'm a socialist because I advocate workers control, but I even though I'm not a state socialist, I still believe a universal healthcare system would be a good short term goal, the facilities can be collectivized when the state dies.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

10 Jul 2013, 10:44 pm

redriverronin wrote:
That's 100% right unless that is your a liberal then whenever you try to explain the history of all governments they get very angry and very confrontational. They use the most childish tactics they can to reassure themselves in there dogmatic belief that government in an all powerful tool of good.


While a liberal might suggest that government should be used as a tool for creating equality of opportunity or quality of life, this is entirely independent of the understanding that no government has ever come close to achieving this goal.

I am, however, curious to read any material you personally produce on "the history of all governments".

On topic:

I would fully support any form of government which was proven to be a morally impeccable servant of the people. This probably makes me anti-government.



nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

10 Jul 2013, 10:59 pm

RushKing wrote:
I'm a socialist because I advocate workers control, but I even though I'm not a state socialist, I still believe a universal healthcare system would be a good short term goal, the facilities can be collectivized when the state dies.


My socialism has changed over the years. These days, I would prefer a mixture of state socialism and democratic socialism or collectivization - maybe a bit like Tito's Yugoslavia (toward the end of his life).


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,159
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

10 Jul 2013, 11:19 pm

adifferentname wrote:
redriverronin wrote:
That's 100% right unless that is your a liberal then whenever you try to explain the history of all governments they get very angry and very confrontational. They use the most childish tactics they can to reassure themselves in there dogmatic belief that government in an all powerful tool of good.


While a liberal might suggest that government should be used as a tool for creating equality of opportunity or quality of life, this is entirely independent of the understanding that no government has ever come close to achieving this goal.

I am, however, curious to read any material you personally produce on "the history of all governments".

On topic:

I would fully support any form of government which was proven to be a morally impeccable servant of the people. This probably makes me anti-government.


Civil rights legislation certainly has brought black Americans and soon gays that much closer to equality. That couldn't have been done without a national government. Same could be said for workers rights, especially for the right to organize and bargain collectively, which led to the American middle class. Again, that would have been impossible without government intervention for the sake of equality.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,159
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

10 Jul 2013, 11:22 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
RushKing wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Efficient government or government done right is adaptive and doesn't need constant fixing or addition because it promotes local problem solving. No government is really just a short time of anarchy before the game of 'spin-the-bottle' lands on one particular form of tyranny/despotism or another.
Consensus/Direct Democracy (Anarchy) is the most adaptive form of government, the rest are tyranny/despotism.

I meant anarchy in the zero government sense.

As far as consencus/direct democracy - that's fine with me under one condition: that the power is bottom-heavy (ie. local level) with a deposit of rules at the national level that take herculean effort to be added to or subtracted from, that way the federal structure is purely utility rather than Washington DC being the place to be for influence and power. Direct democracy of small groups for towns and cities is a good thought, trying to make that a state.

One of socialism's biggest claims is that if it weren't for national efforts you wouldn't have had a water or sewage infrastructure in France, nor would you have had a national highway system in the US nor Audubon in Germany. Australia then sports its state to state change of railroad track sizes and fittings as a failure of capitalism in public infrastructure. I'd figure paying attention to history and having an educated populace means more than having three hour traffic jams in Fairfax, VA in the morning. Its one thing to say it needs coherent fundraising and oversight, another to say that it'll only work if it's piggy-backed on some national legislation as pork.


But what happens if a local populace decides some unpopular minority shouldn't have the same civil rights as everyone else? That's when a national government is necessary to step in to protect the minority, and override that local government.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

11 Jul 2013, 12:33 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
RushKing wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Efficient government or government done right is adaptive and doesn't need constant fixing or addition because it promotes local problem solving. No government is really just a short time of anarchy before the game of 'spin-the-bottle' lands on one particular form of tyranny/despotism or another.
Consensus/Direct Democracy (Anarchy) is the most adaptive form of government, the rest are tyranny/despotism.

I meant anarchy in the zero government sense.

As far as consencus/direct democracy - that's fine with me under one condition: that the power is bottom-heavy (ie. local level) with a deposit of rules at the national level that take herculean effort to be added to or subtracted from, that way the federal structure is purely utility rather than Washington DC being the place to be for influence and power. Direct democracy of small groups for towns and cities is a good thought, trying to make that a state.

One of socialism's biggest claims is that if it weren't for national efforts you wouldn't have had a water or sewage infrastructure in France, nor would you have had a national highway system in the US nor Audubon in Germany. Australia then sports its state to state change of railroad track sizes and fittings as a failure of capitalism in public infrastructure. I'd figure paying attention to history and having an educated populace means more than having three hour traffic jams in Fairfax, VA in the morning. Its one thing to say it needs coherent fundraising and oversight, another to say that it'll only work if it's piggy-backed on some national legislation as pork.


But what happens if a local populace decides some unpopular minority shouldn't have the same civil rights as everyone else? That's when a national government is necessary to step in to protect the minority, and override that local government.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Well, what would happen if a national government decided an unpopular minority shouldn't have the same rights as other people? I would assume the outcome would be much more serious. It is much easier to flee a local government than it is a national one.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,159
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

11 Jul 2013, 1:02 am

RushKing wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
RushKing wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Efficient government or government done right is adaptive and doesn't need constant fixing or addition because it promotes local problem solving. No government is really just a short time of anarchy before the game of 'spin-the-bottle' lands on one particular form of tyranny/despotism or another.
Consensus/Direct Democracy (Anarchy) is the most adaptive form of government, the rest are tyranny/despotism.

I meant anarchy in the zero government sense.

As far as consencus/direct democracy - that's fine with me under one condition: that the power is bottom-heavy (ie. local level) with a deposit of rules at the national level that take herculean effort to be added to or subtracted from, that way the federal structure is purely utility rather than Washington DC being the place to be for influence and power. Direct democracy of small groups for towns and cities is a good thought, trying to make that a state.

One of socialism's biggest claims is that if it weren't for national efforts you wouldn't have had a water or sewage infrastructure in France, nor would you have had a national highway system in the US nor Audubon in Germany. Australia then sports its state to state change of railroad track sizes and fittings as a failure of capitalism in public infrastructure. I'd figure paying attention to history and having an educated populace means more than having three hour traffic jams in Fairfax, VA in the morning. Its one thing to say it needs coherent fundraising and oversight, another to say that it'll only work if it's piggy-backed on some national legislation as pork.


But what happens if a local populace decides some unpopular minority shouldn't have the same civil rights as everyone else? That's when a national government is necessary to step in to protect the minority, and override that local government.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Well, what would happen if a national government decided an unpopular minority shouldn't have the same rights as other people? I would assume the outcome would be much more serious. It is much easier to flee a local government than it is a national one.


That's unless that centralized government is like ours, founded on the precepts of liberty, and continued to grow in that direction, even beyond the intent of the founders. That sort of government I'd like to have my back regarding civil rights.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



redriverronin
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 23 Dec 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 267

11 Jul 2013, 3:13 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
RushKing wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
RushKing wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Efficient government or government done right is adaptive and doesn't need constant fixing or addition because it promotes local problem solving. No government is really just a short time of anarchy before the game of 'spin-the-bottle' lands on one particular form of tyranny/despotism or another.
Consensus/Direct Democracy (Anarchy) is the most adaptive form of government, the rest are tyranny/despotism.

I meant anarchy in the zero government sense.

As far as consencus/direct democracy - that's fine with me under one condition: that the power is bottom-heavy (ie. local level) with a deposit of rules at the national level that take herculean effort to be added to or subtracted from, that way the federal structure is purely utility rather than Washington DC being the place to be for influence and power. Direct democracy of small groups for towns and cities is a good thought, trying to make that a state.

One of socialism's biggest claims is that if it weren't for national efforts you wouldn't have had a water or sewage infrastructure in France, nor would you have had a national highway system in the US nor Audubon in Germany. Australia then sports its state to state change of railroad track sizes and fittings as a failure of capitalism in public infrastructure. I'd figure paying attention to history and having an educated populace means more than having three hour traffic jams in Fairfax, VA in the morning. Its one thing to say it needs coherent fundraising and oversight, another to say that it'll only work if it's piggy-backed on some national legislation as pork.


But what happens if a local populace decides some unpopular minority shouldn't have the same civil rights as everyone else? That's when a national government is necessary to step in to protect the minority, and override that local government.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Well, what would happen if a national government decided an unpopular minority shouldn't have the same rights as other people? I would assume the outcome would be much more serious. It is much easier to flee a local government than it is a national one.


That's unless that centralized government is like ours, founded on the precepts of liberty, and continued to grow in that direction, even beyond the intent of the founders. That sort of government I'd like to have my back regarding civil rights.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

You really like to be blind to the fact that the good old USA has more laws and prisoners than any place on earth so how does that equate to freedom and liberty? Ah yes by giving a very large number of freebies and special laws to some of the worst people in society. While at the same time destroying jobs and way of life for the middle class families with nafta and soon npfta even more good jobs gone. Dont don't worry though because mcdonalds and coke with the help of your government will make lots of new jobs paying little to nothing and no benefits what so ever. Welcome to the great government rule where you have no choice but the wrong choice.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,159
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

11 Jul 2013, 4:00 am

I was referring to the Civil Rights Act, the promotion of gay marriage, etc.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Redstar2613
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 363
Location: Australia

11 Jul 2013, 5:42 am

Government would be good if the politicians did what they were supposed to do. They are meant to work for us but they've made it so that it's the other way around. But ultimately, we still have the power. People just have to wake up, realize what's going on by looking at the actual facts instead of ignoring them because they believe ignorance is bliss (try saying that from within FEMA Camps) and then realize that we do actually have the power to fix things.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,576
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

11 Jul 2013, 6:29 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
But what happens if a local populace decides some unpopular minority shouldn't have the same civil rights as everyone else? That's when a national government is necessary to step in to protect the minority, and override that local government.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

That's just it, I never argued against national government nor national courts. The conversation at least from my perspective is economics control and whether more human authority should be at the local level rather than national level (national level would be deposits like Constitution, Bill of Rights, UCC, etc.) and US house and senate meet as rarely as possible so that they deal with real issues rather than lobbyist driven ones. Pretty much keep federal government as absolutely tiny and unused as possible. Let armed services and federal law enforcement have a few strong oversight committees and let that be that.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

11 Jul 2013, 8:38 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
redriverronin wrote:
That's 100% right unless that is your a liberal then whenever you try to explain the history of all governments they get very angry and very confrontational. They use the most childish tactics they can to reassure themselves in there dogmatic belief that government in an all powerful tool of good.


While a liberal might suggest that government should be used as a tool for creating equality of opportunity or quality of life, this is entirely independent of the understanding that no government has ever come close to achieving this goal.

I am, however, curious to read any material you personally produce on "the history of all governments".

On topic:

I would fully support any form of government which was proven to be a morally impeccable servant of the people. This probably makes me anti-government.


Civil rights legislation certainly has brought black Americans and soon gays that much closer to equality. That couldn't have been done without a national government. Same could be said for workers rights, especially for the right to organize and bargain collectively, which led to the American middle class. Again, that would have been impossible without government intervention for the sake of equality.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Apologies if my meaning was unclear, a result of it being late night (early morning?) after some distracting news. That sentence should have read "...no government has ever come close to achieving this goal perfectly.

Ultimately, though, can we really give credit to the government for simply passing legislation? Surely this is merely government doing its job? I'm not suggesting that your short post undermines the fine work of prominent civil rights protesters such as MLK, but don't the campaigners who fight for equality deserve far more credit than the pencil-pushers do?



Magneto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,086
Location: Blighty

11 Jul 2013, 11:31 am

You can't argue for government on the basis that it's solved a problem it itself created... otherwise I could stab you and then take the credit for looking after you, because I'm such a good person.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

11 Jul 2013, 11:36 am

Kraichgauer wrote:

That's unless that centralized government is like ours, founded on the precepts of liberty, and continued to grow in that direction, even beyond the intent of the founders. That sort of government I'd like to have my back regarding civil rights.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


During the administration of John Adams the second president, the Alien and Sedition Acts which completely violated the First Amendment was passed. It was repealed under the administration of Thomas Jefferson.

If you think our government is all about liberty and equality under the law, think again.

Our laws favor the very very rich and the deadbeats and do-nothings of the land. Liberty and -Justice- for whom?

ruveyn



RedHanrahan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Sep 2007
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,204
Location: Aotearoa/New Zealand

11 Jul 2013, 5:30 pm

I am only anti BAD government, some form of social regulation is inevitable and some governing body comes with it, the process and choice is the part I start to take issue with as the results seem to inevitably resemble a swamp with the scum always rising to the top in a mist of bad gas...

peace j


_________________
Just because we can does not mean we should.

What vision is left? And is anyone asking?

Have a great day!