Government corruption and intellectual dishonesty

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: pexx421

Lower taxes don't compel businesses to do anything, but they do give them choice. Higher taxes completely remove that choice and are 100% detrimental because they 100% do produce all of the listed effects with zero net positives. If your stated desire is higher wages, you can't compel them without detriment to the economy; the places $15 min wage are learning that lesson now.

So, as I stated, your position is just to let business do whatever it wants, and hope they don’t leave. Sorry, but that’s not a balance of power, it’s corporate tyranny, and is unsustainable.

And, you COULD compel them. We just choose not to. We have the best incentive in the world, the us market, the largest consumer population. Access to us markets could be leveraged to bring them to heel. And let’s discuss what you’re leaving out. On the table here is not their ability to make profit, or even to make great profit. It’s just a rebellion to any attempts we make to have the profit, created by them and their workers, distributed in a more reasonable fashion. And this current reality, which you obviously support, is why they are our unelected rulers and are the deep state.

a reply to: pexx421

So because consumers aren't doing what you want them to, you want the government to force it to happen? Have you ever thought that maybe there are cogent reasons why the ibdividuals acting in a market choose to behave as they do even if it isn't as you would have them do?

For example, people decried the conditions of people living stacked up in roach and rat motel slum lord apartments because assumed these people all had no choice and they passed laws making it illegal for the good of tjose people, but a certain percentage of those people had made a calculated financial choice that allowed them to save money a eventually rise out of that condition thereby. Those laws eliminated that avenue of escape for that class of people making it harder to elevate themselves.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: pexx421

So because consumers aren't doing what you want them to, you want the government to force it to happen? Have you ever thought that maybe there are cogent reasons why the ibdividuals acting in a market choose to behave as they do even if it isn't as you would have them do?

For example, people decried the conditions of people living stacked up in roach and rat motel slum lord apartments because assumed these people all had no choice and they passed laws making it illegal for the good of tjose people, but a certain percentage of those people had made a calculated financial choice that allowed them to save money a eventually rise out of that condition thereby. Those laws eliminated that avenue of escape for that class of people making it harder to elevate themselves.

Mhm. And how many of those people wound up “elevated” prior to when it was illegal? They all good, middle class people now? You are blinded by ideology.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: pexx421

So because consumers aren't doing what you want them to, you want the government to force it to happen? Have you ever thought that maybe there are cogent reasons why the ibdividuals acting in a market choose to behave as they do even if it isn't as you would have them do?

For example, people decried the conditions of people living stacked up in roach and rat motel slum lord apartments because assumed these people all had no choice and they passed laws making it illegal for the good of tjose people, but a certain percentage of those people had made a calculated financial choice that allowed them to save money a eventually rise out of that condition thereby. Those laws eliminated that avenue of escape for that class of people making it harder to elevate themselves.

And you misunderstand. I didn’t state the consumers should behave any kind of way. That’s not how the world works anymore, if it ever was. It takes the state to combat corporate tyranny. At any rate, what’s your solution? You think we should embrace the corporate tyranny, and accept our roles as peasants and indentured servants? You keep pushing your delusion that “it will all end up better for everyone!” Despite the fact that it never has. How do you propose to balance the equation of power between the workers and the oligarchs? Or do you labor under the delusion that it will work itself out??

a reply to: pexx421

Who knows for sure, but it's obvious that none of them were after that because that route was closed to them. That choice was removed.

Just because not everyone did it or made it work for them doesn't invalidate it as a path that worked for those who took it.

People are individuals and what works for me won't for you and vice versa. Oddly enough, we each are best equipped to deal with our own personal dilemmas and circumstances not some beancounter in an office in DC working off the law of averages when making decisions: The average person A ... The average person B ... The average person C ... None of us is the perfect average person.

a reply to: ketsuko

Look. I’m sure there were probably some slaves who fought, escaped, and became freedmen and successful business owners. That doesn’t mean that it’s a good system because some people can succeed even under those conditions.

The judgment of a system is based off of quantifiable metrics that can be studied. And statistical perusal of the us shows a decline in opportunity, wealth, and circumstance over time for an increasing portion of the population.

originally posted by: pexx421
a reply to: ketsuko

Look. I’m sure there were probably some slaves who fought, escaped, and became freedmen and successful business owners. That doesn’t mean that it’s a good system because some people can succeed even under those conditions.

The judgment of a system is based off of quantifiable metrics that can be studied. And statistical perusal of the us shows a decline in opportunity, wealth, and circumstance over time for an increasing portion of the population.

Does it?

Relative to what metric? Are you measuring it globally? If you are, then most of what we call poor are quite well off indeed. Also, US poverty rates are on a percentage, we could all make 6 figures tomorrow and the bottom percentage would still be living in poverty according to US poverty stats.

Do you account for mobility between economic strata? Dirt poor this year may not be next year. How many people fall into and rise out of poverty? If you can climb out, then do the overall numbers matter as much without hard data on how many are truly stuck there?

And of course, this was the rationale used for Obamacare wasn't it? I don't recall that fixing anything, only breaking things worse which is the other danger with nationalized systems -- they aren't "done right" but instead make things worse and screw over everyone instead of only some being screwed.

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: DBCowboy
At least with government we have a system of redress.
[/QUOTE]

We do in theory.

So long as the relevant evidence isn't classified.

So long as your representative actually cares who you vote.

So long as an honest press accurately reports to you what your government is even doing.

originally posted by: pexx421

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: DBCowboy

So support for a limited, smaller government, more individual freedom and rights would be the antithesis for the oligarchs that you decry.

What you’re overlooking again is that making the government smaller like you want doesn’t lead to more freedom for the individual. It leads to more corporate interests buying the ability to dictate what freedoms we have.

Corporations can only sell.
If we "buy" what they're selling, then the onus is on us.

By supporting these political parties (Libertarianism, Republicans, etc) that claim to be working for small government all you’re doing is handing that power to a different group of corrupt people.

Supporting political parties is the problem. As long as all of us continue to put our faith in these groups that have already been bought and sold we’re just running on the hamster wheel. It looks like we’re going somewhere, but we never leave the cage.

The solution is to extract ourselves from the entire system that’s handed to us. Stop playing their game. Stop allowing their rules to dictate the direction our country goes. The power lies in us, not the choices the corrupt people give to us.

I've taken great pains to avoid using "party" labels.

Corruption exists within our government regardless of party affiliation.

Changing parties, changing systems without acknowledging and addressing the inherent corruption within won't change anything and will probably make things even worse.

Its not true that corporations can only sell. Corporations can buy legislation and manipulate govt. Oligarchs can sabotage competition, can forcefully manipulate wages, can create sweatshop banana republic style economies and slave labor, enforced with mercenaries or even govt aid. They did it here in the 1800's and early 1900's and they currently do it all over latin america, the middle east, africa, china, etc. Yes, those very same corporations that many of us work for here, and buy product from here, commit crimes against humanity, assassinations, child labor, slavery, sweat shop exploitation, all over the world today.

I think what you mean is that corporations can influence the press. Indeed the can control it outright.

Everything you've listed here is only possible for one of two reasons.

A - A press blackout. (Of press the public would take seriously, anyway.)

B - Local governments are already corrupt, and are willingly supporting their behavior.


If it's "B", then we're right back where we started: not trusting government.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: underwerks

I’m going to keep this post in check because I lost a very good friend yesterday to just this kind of argument.

Have you actually read anything about the REAL Libertarian Party in the US? Somalia is not libertarian by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, that’s got to be one of the most IGNORANT comparisons I’ve ever heard, and it seems to be the only one that anti-Libertarians are capable of.

Here's a link to the current Libertarian Platform.

Because somehow I doubt you will bother, I’ll quote from the Preamble for anyone interested:

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty: a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are not forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others. We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power

Thank you for this Gryph, we can agree 100% on what you posted here.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: underwerks

If you did know anything about the Libertarian platform, you wouldn’t have parroted the stupid crap about SomaliaS.

So you’re the arbiter now of how faithfully someone enacts their political beliefs? Pfft.

If by conservatives you mean classic Republicans or Eisenhower Republicans, I might agree with you. All the “lofty ideals” are window dressing? Hoo Boy. Perhaps if the Democratic and Republican Parties hadn’t been granted a mandate in this country, we’d see what the application of alternate policies might accomplish.

What are you doing to make the world a better place, eh? You’re right in here with the righties throwing mud, bud.

You critique “small government” as a Libertarian principle, yet, it’s not found in the platform I linked, which of course, you didn’t bother to review because you already know everything, like Somalia is Libertarian.

Keep mouthing the catch-phrases Undie. You’re starting to sound like the ardent Trump supporters.

I am an ardent now, DJT supporter as a card carrying Libertarian if we could carry one. I voted DJT because the Libertarian Johnson was a socialist idiot last time. Now that DJT has kept his promises, a 1st since Reagan, I am a super glad DJT is leading the swamp draining. Super glad indeed. He is a big mouth New Yorker who has had to get it done, put up or shut up style for decades. I didn't like him, I wanted a list of others. But now after all I have learned, he is my all time #1 POTUS. He came at a time when freedom was almost totally defeated. Still may be but I feel like we have turned the corner now.
As a Veteran I am proud to have a POTUS, any POTUS that backs our troops too! Not since Ike have we had that.

a reply to: DBCowboy

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.

That's what it all really boils down to. How could our government not be corrupt when the public is corrupt? Every time one votes for "social services" or "welfare" of almost any kind they're participating in bribery and corruption. The representatives offering up the public's money to any constituency that is not every american, is guilty of bribery. They're promising to give away money that is not theirs to people in exchange for votes. Voters who want to "soak the rich" are participating in corruption. They seek to steal what is not theirs, using the power of government.

The disease extends to the people. Our government is made up of representatives that accurately represent their constituents in most cases. In the case of systemic corruption, it is enabled because the people who vote for their representatives are, themselves, corrupt. Our representatives are a mirror.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: pexx421

... and you my friend seem unable to imagine that the world’s dynamics are more complex than a “class war.”

Very true in the 1840s, not true in the same way today. What we have in the United States is an EVER ENCROACHING GOVERNMENT that is traded off between two business partner Parties, so that it seems that there are two “sides.”

Income inequity would be solved in a year were all the governmental privileges for that elite you’re talking about removed. THAT IS WHAT MAINTAINS THE STRUGGLE!

Bread and circuses.

Ok, you are spot on again here!


Good points and well thought out too. 1000 stars for this if I could Gryph. (yes, I have been agreeing with you lately, but I am consistent on when and why I do that).

originally posted by: pexx421
You guys constantly decry the deep state and shadow govt. Who do you think they are? They are the very oligarchs, or those put into power by the oligarchs, that you show so much support for. And see, db, your statement illustrates a fine point of lies and fallacy. Nobody ever contends that we should make the rich poor. That’s not even a part of the discussion. The effects anyone describes would just make them less rich. Oh! The horrors!

The Old Oligarchs are still there, yes. I have been saying they want us back under their "protection" mafioso style for decades.
There are some new players that have caught my attention like Soros an opportunist who is writing his own scripts apparently.
Also there are all those kids who started business from scratch with no history of family wealth that are now the "richest people on Earth" types. What do we think about those new types being the driving force behind all this and the Old Oligarchs are on the outside looking in trying to made deals to prevent violence toward their family and assets?

a reply to: Justoneman

Look at it from the perspective of new money: Hard to argue that either your way isn't "the way" or that you aren't somehow super-qualified to figure it out when so many never do. You must feel like a god, and the temptation to act like one "for the greater good" of course must be pretty powerful.

a reply to: DBCowboy

America's first amendment was the freedom of speech.

So why does the US rank #48 on the press freedom index?

Because fake news can be bought.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: ganjoa
Yo, DBC!
Here's a bit more on the intellectual dishonesty and giving the addict more Heroin:
The proposed solution to cure the addiction is simply to give the addict enough free dope for 'assisted' suicide?

Best way to kill a functioning government is to load it up with charlatans freeloaders and criminals.
Kinda sorta what's been going on for years before any of the current "mess" started.

My thinking is that the intellectual dishonesty begins with intent. I don't think anyone proposing more of the same government itervention and control is really interested in FIXING anything, but just pushing its' destruction harder and sooner.

ganjoa

I would look at it as we provide free Narcan to save the addict so that they can continue to use and be a nearly nonfunctional member of society. They function, but in a negative manner. They steal to support their habit.
That's our govt, continually eroding our freedoms, raising our taxes while plummeting us deeper into a debt pit..... and we keep letting them do it again and again.

That's a great analogy as well.
Kind of like continual repeated waterboarding & reanimation after expiration for an entire culture/society.

So is it assisted suicide, slow murder or just cultural/societal entropy?

ganjoa

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: DBCowboy

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.

That's what it all really boils down to. How could our government not be corrupt when the public is corrupt? Every time one votes for "social services" or "welfare" of almost any kind they're participating in bribery and corruption. The representatives offering up the public's money to any constituency that is not every american, is guilty of bribery. They're promising to give away money that is not theirs to people in exchange for votes. Voters who want to "soak the rich" are participating in corruption. They seek to steal what is not theirs, using the power of government.

The disease extends to the people. Our government is made up of representatives that accurately represent their constituents in most cases. In the case of systemic corruption, it is enabled because the people who vote for their representatives are, themselves, corrupt. Our representatives are a mirror.

Easy solution. Offer the same govt benefits to everyone. One of governments purposes is specifically to redistribute wealth equitably, because oligarchs will never do it in a way sufficient to keep society functional. Their rule always leads to rebellion, uprisings and civil war. So use the taxes to offer the same value of healthcare, education and services to the rich and the poor. Or a minimum basic income that everyone gets. Sure, to the wealthy it will seem a pittance, but they also have the ability to accrue wealth. To the poor, it will be a lifesaver.

underwerks:

...there’s always the option of changing the system for us, the common people while reigning in the power those that run our society have over us.

Yeah, good luck with that!

How are you going to change the system? How are the 'common people' going to reign in the power of those who wield it? You're thinking in terms of noble principles, but principles...well, no one carries any strength of any conviction for any principle anymore...it's too costly in personal terms.

You need some form of a consensus, and at the moment, 'they' (who wield the power) have us all arguing over the miniature of our individual ideological cultural thinking. No one seems to agree with anyone any more, even though we all shout, we all want to be heard, we're just not saying the same thing...we can only unite along similar cultural tropes, but what we need to do is unite cross-culturally, but first, we have to get past each of our own cultural partisanship.

All of this takes compromise, and who is willing to do that in a cross-cultural way? None of this 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' bollocks, until we can reach out across the divisions of culture, 'they' will always maintain a grip on the reins of power. The cultural divisions are only divisions because we don't 'talk' to one another, we're too busy putting our own points across to listen to those on the opposite side of the table.

'They' are playing all of us for suckers and losers, and we are falling for the arguments they put in our laps, we run with them, and always remain divided. Politicians only ever do things for their own self-interest and the agendas they want to push on us, and we apathetically accept it all. We go to vote because we naively believe it will make a difference, but how can it? We are always electing the same 'they' every time.

You are right, we do need to change the political system, we need the scholars to come out of their hermit towers and educate us as to how to go about things, because what we want to start we will want to switch off at the right time. The common folk have to grow and educate themselves and become that which they seek.

a reply to: DBCowboy

But here's the thing. There is a growing number of people, despite the acceptance that government is corrupt, that want to increase the size, scope, power, authority of government.

This is what I mean by intellectual dishonesty.

I get what you are saying over all, but that is not intellectual dishonesty. It's not as simple as the entire government's corrupt or the entire government's not. Both democrats AND republicans have increased the size / authority / budget /scope of the government for the last 20 or so years. So at least Democrats admit wanting to expand the government for health care, social security, etc, while republicans repeatedly run on smaller government but excessively increase military spending and thus spending overall every single year. THAT is intellectually dishonest because they actually run on the smaller government platform while most democrats do not.

Basically, they see a heroin addict and think that giving him MORE heroin will get him off heroin.

That's not a valid comparison. People who think the government is corrupt aren't addicted to it. Why assume that a smaller government would be less corrupt? It's more power in the hands of less people and as I said republicans are the only ones who dishonestly run on the small government platform and never live up to that expectation. At least dems are honest about it.

Now for those who might say, "Well government isn't corrupt", then why would you want to change it if it's working so well?

Big difference between corruption and working well. One of the reasons it doesn't work well is because we have a 2 party system where the 2 parties represent extreme opposites.

Plenty of people don't see the government as inherently corrupt they just want to see it going in one direction or the other (conservatism vs liberalism). Plus liberals generally see the repubs as corrupt and vice versa. It's not all or nothing as far as government corruption goes.

It's the same thing for raising taxes. You'd have to first prove that government is spending the money they already take from us wisely in order to justify government taking more, unless you actually WANT a corrupt government to take more.

So for cutting taxes, do you have to prove that the government is unwisely spending that money? There are times when raising taxes is justified, there are times when it's not. Why is everything is black and white to you? Easy to say "cut taxes" when all you care about is your own personal money, but you can't cut something without taking something away, IE social security, medicare, etc. I get that most people care more about their wallets than the future of the human race, but that doesn't mean tax cuts are inherently good or that tax increases are inherently bad or an increase of corruption.

A good government is balanced, and our government is not. You can't have the government with tons of power, but at the same time you can't give big corporation tons of power either. You gotta have a balance. Right now corporations have too much power, much more than the government. Just look how 75% of republicans in congress are in the pocket of the NRA.