It seems to me our country's founding fathers operated on a pair of equally fundamental assumptions:

1.) Government is inherently untrustworthy, and therefore needs to be constrained.

2.) The governed, if sufficiently virtuous, can hold government in check and thereby enjoy individual freedom and prosperity.

Today however, it seems the self-styled "progressives" operate on a trio of fundamental assumptions:

1.) Government is benevolent.

2.) Government's rightful mission is to make improvements.

3.) Government experts know better than ordinary people how to make those necessary improvements.

9/11/2012 1:58:11 PM

Sounds about right.

Quote :

"The governed, if sufficiently virtuous, can hold government in check and thereby enjoy individual freedom and prosperity."

So, the people are not virtuous, and they certainly have not held the government back. However, I'm not sure that it would even be possible for a people to be virtuous enough to stop the locomotive known as consolidated state power once put into motion.

Those assumptions are accurate, though, based on what I hear out of "progressives". Despite all evidence to the contrary, they believe that the government can actually bring about the positive changes they would like to see in society. Somehow, even with the knowledge that the current regime has committed and is committing atrocities, they foolishly hold out hope. There is no evidence that will change their mind; "good government" is their religion.

9/11/2012 2:20:27 PM

Sounds like a bunch of misinformed propaganda to me.

Why is it that all of the haters come out of the woodwork now, what about when reagan was sending U.S. troops to Chiapas to displace local inhabitants?

And let's not forget that the majority of western and northern Europe runs perfectly fine utilizing a socialist system.

9/11/2012 2:38:23 PM

I'm in no way agreeing with the OP here, because that was stupid, but

Quote :

"the majority of western and northern Europe runs perfectly fine "

is patently false. Europe is in far more dire straits than the US economically. unemployment is at 11.2% overall, with 24.6% of Spain without work and 14.6% of Ireland unemployed.

The euro narrowly avoided collapsing just a few months ago.

Socialism is easy to blame (or deify as the panacea to all problems), but there are myriad factors that are at play in the eurozone financial crisis.

9/11/2012 3:01:52 PM

Quote :

"I'm in no way agreeing with the OP here, because that was stupid, "

These kind of sentences blow my mind.

9/11/2012 3:06:42 PM

Soap Box is so retarded. I wish the loonies weren't here to derail any real discussions.

9/11/2012 3:28:05 PM

This conversation is now about cake vs. pie.

While I find that cake is often delicious, most modern catered cakes are heavy on the cheap sugary frosting and aren't enjoyable.
Pies are almost always so delicious. Whether its pumpkin, apple, or lemon-meringue, pie is the clear choice.

Discuss.

[Edited on September 11, 2012 at 3:56 PM. Reason : ]

9/11/2012 3:55:17 PM

Quote :

"Soap Box is so retarded. I wish the loonies weren't here to derail any real discussions."

I imagine this is exactly how Democrats and non-Tea Party Republicans in congress feel.

9/11/2012 3:58:36 PM

^well, to be fair, there are some democrats in congress who are liberal-looney.
You probably should have just said "I imagine this is exactly how all the rational moderates in congress feel".

[Edited on September 11, 2012 at 4:16 PM. Reason : definitely pie.]

9/11/2012 4:15:13 PM

Yeah ...... no. I'm not buying the false equivalency bullshit. Liberal "loonies" believe in single payer healthcare and free higher education. Conservative loonies believe that gay marriage causes hurricanes. One is not like the other.

9/11/2012 4:22:54 PM

You forgot:

Crony capitalism and fraud without accountability

The merger of corporation and state

The lack of an informed populous driven by a 24 hour news cycle where critical thinking is left to die and where the facts don't matter

religious nutjobs who want to essentially do away with modern science

and so on...

9/11/2012 4:25:11 PM

Quote :

"Europe is in far more dire straits than the US economically"

Parts of Europe, there are some more liberal that are doing well, there are some that are doing poorly, the same can be said about the more conservative ones. For example, Ireland was generally considered one of the most economically conservative countries in the EU, and it has suffered right beside it's more liberal sister members of Greece and Spain.

9/11/2012 4:39:10 PM

Quote :

"Europe is in far more dire straits than the US economically"

Stop. reading. Lies.

Germany, England, France, pretty much all of North Europe (you know, Sweden, Finalnd, etc...) are gold standards for civilized society.

9/11/2012 5:30:24 PM

england spies on its citizens more than we do
france outlaws burkas
germans smell funny
sweden gets a pass cus they got hot chicks

9/11/2012 5:37:10 PM

Quote :

"Stop. reading. Lies. Germany, England, France, pretty much all of North Europe (you know, Sweden, Finalnd, etc...) are gold standards for civilized society."

Wow. Just wow. Where do you get your information? Ben Bernanke?

9/11/2012 6:42:37 PM

It all depends on your concept of a civilized society. Most people in this country are brought up thinking that this is the best country in the world, but I disagree. I think that England, for example, has a better system. Social health care for all, assistance to lower income families, same sex marriages (civil unions), and much better gun control. Plus more culture to boot.


[Edited on September 11, 2012 at 6:48 PM. Reason : hj]

9/11/2012 6:46:04 PM

Quote :

"much better gun control."

You're assuming the
1.) Government is benevolent.



They didn't disarm them for their safety. They disarmed them so they can control them. The only ones left with the weapons are the military.

You can always kill each other with other weapons if you wanted to kill someone. Guns are just 1 more method to the thousands of ways to kill someone.

Guns play an important role in protecting the citizens from its government.

9/11/2012 6:53:50 PM

The problem is that you are thinking with an agenda and incredibly biased to find data to support your original argument. The data is there: You don't need a bunch of weapons and cc permits for a civilized society.

[Edited on September 11, 2012 at 7:12 PM. Reason : DF]

9/11/2012 7:11:26 PM

Quote :

" You don't need a bunch of weapons and cc permits for a civilized society."

Switzerland has the highest Ratio of Gun vs people. They are a civilized society. Gun control is a completely separate and independent issue and has NO affect on whether a society is civilized or not.

9/11/2012 9:15:14 PM

They are also forced to serve in the military.

How does that shit play in?

9/12/2012 12:12:54 AM

Oh, hey its one of these threads.

1.) Government Any group of human beings with power and a mechanism to increase that power is inherently untrustworthy, and therefore needs to be constrained.
2.) The market is a zero-sum game.

9/12/2012 12:33:14 AM

Has a feeling that posting in this thread would label me as a loonie who derails real discussions.

9/12/2012 1:42:37 AM

Wow. Banjoman is drinking the shit out of some kool-aid.

9/13/2012 10:26:03 AM

Can we stop using this "Kool-Aid" reference? I think it might be being overused. Can you just explain why you feel that way?

9/13/2012 11:19:48 AM

^^^^ Are your points 1 and 2 characterizing what you believe people in this thread believe? Or are your presenting them as your own? Something is painfully wrong with #2 either way.

God, I am done with these incoherent posts. Do you think you're being original by posting something so painfully lacking context that it has no potential to be a part of a conversation? I guess if you don't want to be a part of a conversation you just want the rest of us to make fun of you, and I suppose you're in the right place.

[Edited on September 13, 2012 at 11:21 AM. Reason : ^]

9/13/2012 11:20:51 AM

Quote :

"Any group of human beings with power and a mechanism to increase that power is inherently untrustworthy, and therefore needs to be constrained."

Yes. Now, it's time to take this to the only logical conclusion.

If men are inherently good, then no government is necessary. If men are inherently bad, then we absolutely cannot have a government, since we risk the chance of bad men being installed in positions of power, leading to situations where good men no longer have the leverage necessary to balance things out.

We should agree that people are more likely to do bad things if there are no consequences. If that is true, it also means we shouldn't have a government. In almost every case, government agents are shielded from the consequences of their actions.

Take George W. Bush, for instance. Hundreds of thousands dead as a result of his policies. An economy in the shitter. Corporate handouts. Was he personally accountable for any of this damage? Of course not! He's got enough money for a thousand people to live on for a lifetime. He's got the best health care and the best protection. So, you see, if we agree that actions must have consequences, then we cannot create a tier called "government" where actors are immune from consequences.

9/13/2012 11:28:43 AM

^I like this cat.

9/13/2012 11:37:42 AM

The middle ages rocked.

9/13/2012 1:08:15 PM

^^^that's a lot of words, but not sure what you're getting at. you realize that humans will inherently do bad things that benefit only themselves, especially if there are no consquences. But then you conclude that we can't have government because the bad peple in government will do bad things? So there shouldn't be a government, even though we realize the world will go to complete shit?

9/13/2012 1:28:37 PM

And around we go.

People are inherently bad, so we can't have a government, but trust me, they'll peacefully coexist in a "free market" of power and not form feudal organizations.

What if like 90% of the people are good and 10% are sociopaths? What pie-in-the-sky possibilities can we make from that?

[Edited on September 13, 2012 at 1:55 PM. Reason : .]

9/13/2012 1:53:48 PM

Quote :

"^^^that's a lot of words, but not sure what you're getting at. you realize that humans will inherently do bad things that benefit only themselves, especially if there are no consquences. But then you conclude that we can't have government because the bad peple in government will do bad things? So there shouldn't be a government, even though we realize the world will go to complete shit?"

There's meaning behind the words but you have to read them.

You followed the argument, but in the end you make a massive assumption - that we "realize the world will go to complete shit". Giving bad people power cannot possibly solve the problems that people create, it can only worsen them.

Quote :

"People are inherently bad, so we can't have a government, but trust me, they'll peacefully coexist in a "free market" of power and not form feudal organizations. "

I'm not asking you to trust me, I'm pointing out a logical absolute. The distribution of good people and bad people doesn't affect the argument. If there exists a control mechanism that provides power over other people, sociopaths will seek control of that mechanism. Normal, peaceful people will largely keep to themselves or cooperate with others.

There are problems in society that absolutely have to be dealt with, but it's impossible for government to address those concerns adequately and permanently. So many of those problems are solved when we stop using unnecessary force.

[Edited on September 13, 2012 at 2:22 PM. Reason : ]

9/13/2012 2:20:11 PM

Quote :

"Can we stop using this "Kool-Aid" reference? I think it might be being overused. Can you just explain why you feel that way?"

Without the time to dive into it, how much do you need to know besides the obvious: massive debt, effective welfare societies and sky high taxes to limit freedom.

9/13/2012 2:22:41 PM

Quote :

"I'm not asking you to trust me, I'm pointing out a logical absolute."

Unsubstantiated assertion. You can't just declare logical absolutes by fiat. The only logical absolutes are axiomatic, meaning they are simple and self evident. Like 'A = A'. That society will work to the benefit of more people without governments is not a logical absolute nor IMO substantiated by historical example.

Quote :

"If there exists a control mechanism that provides power over other people, sociopaths will seek control of that mechanism. Normal, peaceful people will largely keep to themselves or cooperate with others."

Explain to me a society with more than one person in which there is no control mechanism to provide power over another person. With or without a government this problem remains.

Quote :

"There are problems in society that absolutely have to be dealt with, but it's impossible for government to address those concerns adequately and permanently. So many of those problems are solved when we stop using unnecessary force."

adequately is an opinion. I'm unconvinced that the order that government brings to societies is preferable to chaos in the terms of the "problems in society that absolutely have to be dealt with." And "those problems" and "unnecessary force" are vague to the point that I don't even know to what you're referring.

Problem: people kill other people. Is government a perfect solution to this problem? No. Prove to me that private security feuds deals with this problem "adequately and permanently."

[Edited on September 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM. Reason : specificity]

9/13/2012 3:16:53 PM

Quote :

"Unsubstantiated assertion. You can't just declare logical absolutes by fiat. The only logical absolutes are axiomatic, meaning they are simple and self evident. Like 'A = A'. That society will work to the benefit of more people without governments is not a logical absolute nor IMO substantiated by historical example."

It's completely provable, though. The problem is that people harm other people. You cannot solve that problem by creating a "government" which has a legal monopoly on harming other people. The problem can't be solved if the solution is more of the problem.

Quote :

"Explain to me a society with more than one person in which there is no control mechanism to provide power over another person. With or without a government this problem remains."

There will likely never be a society where there are no control mechanisms, but why would we go out of our way to create a really powerful one? Consolidation of power is a dangerous thing, and despite all the rhetoric about corporate takeovers, state power is by far the most commonly seen consolidation of power in human history.

Quote :

"adequately is an opinion. I'm unconvinced that the order that government brings to societies is preferable to chaos in the terms of the "problems in society that absolutely have to be dealt with." And "those problems" and "unnecessary force" are vague to the point that I don't even know to what you're referring."

Government brings order? You must be kidding. Government has caused famine, war, and death. Governments are responsible for more deaths than private murders by a long shot. I mean, it's not even close, democide has homicide beat by a country mile.

Quote :

"Problem: people kill other people. Is government a perfect solution to this problem? No."

It's not just an imperfect solution, it's not a solution at all - the problem isn't solved. The problem is actually amplified as a result of government. There's no way that I could convince that you that things would be done better in a voluntary society, but we've got all of history to show us what government is capable of, and history certainly doesn't bolster your argument.

[Edited on September 13, 2012 at 4:26 PM. Reason : ]

9/13/2012 4:24:45 PM

"Freedom is a delicate balance between too much governance and too little." -Bill Stills

9/13/2012 4:25:28 PM

^^We've had all of history to show us what people are capable of. I suggest that without government, we would still have vastly lower life expectancy, more disease, large percentage of under-supported people and generally a much lower population. There would be less people to kill generally speaking.

So yes, if your metric is total absolute number of people killed, the efficiency of government can't be matched. But the same can be said for total absolute amount of suffering prevented or total technological advancement.

9/13/2012 4:36:34 PM

Quote :

"It's completely provable, though."

No it's not. You're talking about "ought", not "is", you'll never be able to prove them.

Quote :

"You cannot solve that problem by creating a "government" which has a legal monopoly on harming other people. The problem can't be solved if the solution is more of the problem."

You're not arguing against the claim being made. The argument is a strong government COULD protect the innocent. You act as if the claim a strong government MIGHT harm the innocent invalidates that, it doesn't.

Quote :

"Government has caused famine, war, and death."

These same things exist in animals, which clearly have no government.

[Edited on September 13, 2012 at 4:41 PM. Reason : ]

9/13/2012 4:41:06 PM

Quote :

"Stop. reading. Lies. Germany, England, France, pretty much all of North Europe (you know, Sweden, Finalnd, etc...) are gold standards for civilized society. "

HAHAHA. Nice troll.

9/13/2012 5:31:19 PM

Quote :

"There will likely never be a society where there are no control mechanisms, but why would we go out of our way to create a really powerful one? Consolidation of power is a dangerous thing, and despite all the rhetoric about corporate takeovers, state power is by far the most commonly seen consolidation of power in human history."

Consolidation of power will always happen. This is the natural impulse of all humans.

Bees build bee-hives. They will never not be building bee-hives, even if it gets smashed to pieces or collapses under its own weight.

9/13/2012 8:35:00 PM

CIA has been committing acts that makes the Gestapo and KGB look friendly and legislation makes it a felony to write about any of it.

¤ Alternative Views
139. (NC) CIA UPDATE [1981]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Cz6Ik9Budu4&list=PL95B2873FCF14780D#!

9/14/2012 6:28:12 AM

Again, do you think that this is new?

See Chiapas during the Reagan days. It's amazing how people forget about history or are uninformed.

9/14/2012 10:39:08 AM

I was not alive during Reagan's term and I'm not familiar with what took place in Chiapas. A quick Google search didn't turn up much - could you elaborate?

9/14/2012 11:06:59 AM

Quote :

"Again, do you think that this is new? See Chiapas during the Reagan days. It's amazing how people forget about history or are uninformed."

First, you act like you know everything that's going on.
Second, you defend it and accept it.

Third, you probably didn't even watch the video. It's from 1981.

Fourth, all because you think you know something, which you clearly don't, it does not mean other people have seen it, too. I am not on this site to post material that BanjoMan has exclusively never seen. It's an absurd concept.

Fifth, It's amazing how you can even type this line: "It's amazing how people forget about history or are uninformed." You act if you are a damn history genius that knows all the secrets of our government. What an astoundingly ignorant remark! Nobody here was even talking about "Chiapas during the Reagan days." so how in the world could you assume we didn't know about something that we weren't talking about??

9/14/2012 12:52:41 PM

You need to lay off the skittles.

9/15/2012 9:13:47 AM

Quote :

"If men are inherently good, then no government is necessary. If men are inherently bad, then we absolutely cannot have a government, since we risk the chance of bad men being installed in positions of power, leading to situations where good men no longer have the leverage necessary to balance things out."

What if people are neither inherently good nor inherently bad?

9/15/2012 3:21:58 PM

"Freedom is a delicate balance between too much governance and too little." -Bill Stills

9/15/2012 4:11:14 PM

9/16/2012 1:27:18 PM

Selective reading of history there, champ.

9/17/2012 10:49:58 PM

^^Why do you hate the free market?

9/18/2012 11:41:57 AM

Quote :

"Fifth, It's amazing how you can even type this line: "It's amazing how people forget about history or are uninformed." You act if you are a damn history genius that knows all the secrets of our government. What an astoundingly ignorant remark! Nobody here was even talking about "Chiapas during the Reagan days." so how in the world could you assume we didn't know about something that we weren't talking about??"

He was likely talking about your blatant out of context quotes about virtues. The founding fathers thought, based on classical republican values, that any man if sufficiently virtuous would be the best ruler. If one was educated at Yale/Harvard, and didn't have business interests in society he too could rule even if he wasn't from a "good" family--that was their meaning of created equal. This all went out the window at the turn of the century (19th) because it was argued no one, save George Washington, was really all that virtuous. This led for a scramble on how best to deal with governing. It was decided that the act of one being selfish was sufficient check on all the others being selfish, and that was how it worked anyway even if gentleman claimed they were not interested. This was markedly different from how the founding fathers envisioned the system working. There are plenty of social/economic reasons why it turned out that way, but you don't seem to have the slightest fucking clue about those either.

By 1820 things had drastically changed again, and by the civil war yet again, but my civil war history is shaky at best.

</fedTroll>

9/18/2012 12:22:46 PM