"Big" government

[Velokid1]

The state of our government is a fucking joke, there is no doubt. But I need to say something about it and wanted it to be MY own thread so that at least my post is at the top of the thread when my thoughts are subsequently buried by the anti-government hypnotizing chants.

American government is a joke; from municipal government on up. In my opinion, there is no sense in dissecting the two, e.g. when people say "you can't choose your country but you CAN choose your state... so just move!"

Here's the thing: actual men are the culprits. Men with greedy hearts who eschew principles and compassion in favor of profits and a paycheck. Government isn't the culprit; government is a tool. Like all tools, it can be used for good or for evil. Evil men do evil works with the tools they have. Good men do good works with the same tools. Making government your sworn enemy is like deciding that guns, books or electricity are the enemy since wicked people use those tools to do wicked deeds.

Know your enemy. Your enemy is the living, breathing men and women whose love of profits eclipses their god-given sense of compassion and connectedness to the people around them. The enemy isn't government. Throw out government from your toolbox and you'll quickly see the wicked men of the world eat you alive with their wealth and their corporations. Government is the only defense the working class and the poor have against the enormous corporate machinery that wants to bulldoze us all.

The only thing they'd like more than having total control over our government like they do now is to have government out of the picture entirely. They would LOVE to see the Libertarians succeed at that! Because without government, we are all defenseless. Quick peek at history shows that over and over.

There are a lot of good ideas being brought forth by the Libertarian revival that is so trendy right now, primarily amongst reactionaries looking for a new way to be reactive, but also amongst a few thinking folks. But this obsession with demonizing the federal government is not one of those good ideas, especially when it lets capitalist pigs off the hook (real people, see) while demonizing the federal government (which is an inanimate thing, a tool).

It's like blaming the darkness for stealing your car instead of blaming the car thief who drove off in your car at 3 AM. "It's not that guy's fault! He couldn't have done it if it weren't for the DARKNESS! I hate dark!"

[Spezialist]

I'm aligned with most libertarian democratic views, as defined in wikipedia.

[Velokid1]

I may be, too. I don't really know what pigeon-hole I'd allow myself to be shoved into, but I know that pretending the federal government is the enemy is a retarded idea. There are just so many ACTUAL INDIVIDUAL'S who fully deserve the blame that I don't know how people even get around to personifying government.

[RussellK]

We recently had a minor e coli outbreak. The federal government sent a team from the CDC up from Atlanta to investigate. They believe they have located a source and identified it as potentially coming from a grocery chain's salad bars. Their stores are in a minimum of 24 localities. It takes the scope of a federal government agency to investigate, disseminate information and ascertain the grocer or other potential source does what it should to resolve the problem. I don't think the state or local health departments would have the necessary resources to effectively pull this off.

[BellePlaine]

Government isn't the culprit; government is a tool. Like all tools, it can be used for good or for evil. Evil men do evil works with the tools they have. Good men do good works with the same tools. Making government your sworn enemy is like deciding that guns, books or electricity are the enemy since wicked people use those tools to do wicked deeds.

Know your enemy. Your enemy is the living, breathing men and women whose love of profits eclipses their god-given sense of compassion and connectedness to the people around them. The enemy isn't government. Throw out government from your toolbox and you'll quickly see the wicked men of the world eat you alive with their wealth and their corporations. Government is the only defense the working class and the poor have against the enormous corporate machinery that wants to bulldoze us all.

I understand that government is a tool. As you say, it's the people in government make it for good or evil. My opinion is that as a tool, like a gun, "it" (being the group of people that are in the Federal Government) should be neutral. Because what is good for me might be bad for you so it should just be neutral and I think that this is what Libertarians are looking for. It should not be a defense for the working class nor a champion for rich, it should simply protect your/our basic right(s). That is all that it can do. Because if we ask it to protect any particular group other than the whole group then we give someone license to make a profit at another group's expense. That "someone" is always going to be a politician or a corporation.

[glasseye]

It seems to me that it'd be a good idea to consciously separate the concepts of "government" and "politician".

The two are not equal.

[RussellK]

I actually know and like a few politicians. They are dedicated, principled and honest. Just like a lot of the rest of us. You know what's ironic? The public complaining that politicians don't listen to them and politicians complaining the public doesn't communicate with them. Get involved. Otherwise you're just sitting on your ass bitching.

[Lanval]

I actually know and like a few politicians. They are dedicated, principled and honest. Just like a lot of the rest of us. You know what's ironic? The public complaining that politicians don't listen to them and politicians complaining the public doesn't communicate with them. Get involved. Otherwise you're just sitting on your ass bitching.

The claim of "them vs. us" ~ often understood as "evil vs. good" is patently false; most people I've met are well-meaning people who are trying to make their way in the world while not hurting others. Government does a lot of good; it does a lot of bad, too, but we can fix that if we are willing to take the time and effort to hold our representatives accountable. But that "time and effort" is essentially work, and many find it easier to belittle than to put in real effort.

Politicians are the problem? Maybe you should read about this guy ~ I've respected him since his early days as a local guy in Oregon politics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyden

Here's an example of his ethical attention:

"Wyden has stated personal opposition to physician assisted suicide, but has also stated a commitment to defending the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, which was twice passed by voter referendum."

A man of integrity at both the personal and professional level.

Michael L


Michael L

[ruckman101]

Ron rocks, alright.


neal

[BellePlaine]

Without a doubt not every politician is a sell-out. Just like not every corporation is profit-centric. I think that the best companies are the ones who can balance profits against making a quality product with the priority being slightly towards building a quality product. The same is probably true about the best politicians.

[Velokid1]

I too don't believe all politicians are bad people. The lure of our currently corrupted system attracts bad people more than we'd all like and makes the work environment more uncomfortable for principled men and women, but they're still in there duking it out. We need to get away from the blanket statements that tend to push good people out of a group or community rather than weeding out the shitheads. It's true that many lawyers are slimy for instance, but there are some doing really good work... And all that saying "lawyers are scum!" accomplishes is to deter good people from practicing law. Cuz good people CARE if their profession is respected or not; corrupt shitheads don't.

Same with government. If we demonize government work, good people run from it and bad people run TO it.

BP- I find it interesting that you see as a corporation's obligation the balancing of profits with a quality product. I tend to see it more as a balance between profits and treating others well (meaning their employees, their neighbors they share land/air/water with, etc). The quality of the products is either there or not and generally the market rewards whichever product is fulfilling the public's needs best.

There are a lot of awful corporations, some good ones and but a handful of exemplary ones that excel in all departments: profitability, high quality of output, and a strong sense of giving back to the planet and other people. Patagonia clothing is one of those few. Yvonne Chouinard's book about how he established and runs that hugely successful company is an excellent read.

[BellePlaine]

BP- I find it interesting that you see as a corporation's obligation the balancing of profits with a quality product. I tend to see it more as a balance between profits and treating others well (meaning their employees, their neighbors they share land/air/water with, etc). The quality of the products is either there or not and generally the market rewards whichever product is fulfilling the public's needs best.

Treating others well is probably related to the quality of their product. Well treated employees should give you a better product. I guess I was thinking about Apple. Why doesn't anyone protest Apple's profits? I thought that heard that Apple has more cash than the Federal Government, or something like that. I don't own an Ipod, Iphone, or a Mac but it's my understanding that Steve Jobs came from the production side and so Apple was/is focused on quality vs. profits.

I see it in the brewing industry all of the time. More often than not, the better beer is brewed by breweries where the owner is the brewmaster, or at least heavily involved (think Sierra Nevada, New Belgium, Sam Adams, New Glarus, Stone, Russian River, etc...) verses breweries that are owned by venture capitalists. I don't that it's any coincidence that the more successful companies in the long-term are the ones where profit is important but not #1.

[Velokid1]

Ahh, I see what you're saying. I was thinking of something different. I agree that quality must be a concern, and the bar you set for your company in terms of the quality of your product/service is a decision to be made. Some won't settle for anything but their best quality, others compromise a little, and then there are many who obviously make a conscious decision to turn out a low quality, low price product because there's a market for it for whatever reason.

What I was saying was that if I had to place certain values/goals on polar ends of the spectrum, two things that are perhaps mutually exclusive and so a balance must be struck... those poles would probably be Profitability on one end and Responsibility (to the environment and other people, customers or not) on the other end.

I'm not doing a great job of explaining what I meant but I do get what you were saying now.

As for Apple... I've never been very invested in the Apple Is Evil argument and haven't paid much attention, but I have been aware that Apple is very hated by many, primarily for their monopoly-fostering competitive practices. It has perplexed me somewhat that the post-humus praise of Steve Jobs has been fairly universal. IMO here we have a man who was a bitchin CEO in terms of being innovative, producing a quality product, and making a company immensely profitable... but he probably doesn't deserve much praise in terms of ethics.

My personal opinion is that a truly exemplary corporation would have all the above, INCLUDING an impeccable track record for minimizing and mitigating the impact of their operations on the planet and for giving back to the world community via charitable programs. Like Patagonia. I would be very surprised if anybody had a viable criticism of Patagonia's operations, other than the argument that they "charge too much" for their products.

[steve74baywin]

American government is a joke; from municipal government on up. In my opinion, there is no sense in dissecting the two, e.g. when people say "you can't choose your country but you CAN choose your state... so just move!"

The point in people saying that is this. The Fed gov was supposed to be very limited to ensure our rights. The states are the ones that could come up with more of the crazy BS laws that I don't like either. But your vote counts more with less people in a state than the 50 states and you'd be able to at least move to a different area. But I agree, it don't matter right now, the Fed make laws across the states in violation of the constitution.

Here's the thing: actual men are the culprits. Men with greedy hearts who eschew principles and compassion in favor of profits and a paycheck. Government isn't the culprit; government is a tool. Like all tools, it can be used for good or for evil. Evil men do evil works with the tools they have. Good men do good works with the same tools. Making government your sworn enemy is like deciding that guns, books or electricity are the enemy since wicked people use those tools to do wicked deeds.

Know your enemy. Your enemy is the living, breathing men and women whose love of profits eclipses their god-given sense of compassion and connectedness to the people around them. The enemy isn't government. Throw out government from your toolbox and you'll quickly see the wicked men of the world eat you alive with their wealth and their corporations. Government is the only defense the working class and the poor have against the enormous corporate machinery that wants to bulldoze us all.

I see your point but I also think it is your perception, in other words government is made up of men and most of us do realize both, they are separate in some ways but not in others. Most of us smart enough to talk about this stuff do realize the Government is not an entity totally separate from men, but yet it is men who change it, created it, use, etc, etc.

The only thing they'd like more than having total control over our government like they do now is to have government out of the picture entirely. They would LOVE to see the Libertarians succeed at that! Because without government, we are all defenseless. Quick peek at history shows that over and over.

Error, Libertarian does not equal government out of the picture entirely.
Chee, I thought you knew this. Go to http://www.lp.org
Serious, I am very saddened that after all this time and all my post you think Libertarian equals no government.
A quick peek at history shows me men being ruled by people in government. Please elaborate on what you see? What time and place do you see people without a government?
Also, How do you come to that statement that without government we are defenseless? But, once again, Libertarian is a limited government not no government.
I really do feel I have been wasting my time on here if after all these years people think Libertarian equals no government, or I really do suck at communicating, but that would still mean I'm wasting my time.

There are a lot of good ideas being brought forth by the Libertarian revival that is so trendy right now, primarily amongst reactionaries looking for a new way to be reactive, but also amongst a few thinking folks. But this obsession with demonizing the federal government is not one of those good ideas, especially when it lets capitalist pigs off the hook (real people, see) while demonizing the federal government (which is an inanimate thing, a tool).

It's like blaming the darkness for stealing your car instead of blaming the car thief who drove off in your car at 3 AM. "It's not that guy's fault! He couldn't have done it if it weren't for the DARKNESS! I hate dark!"

Once again, I think it is part your perception. True the darkness didn't steal the car, but it did have it's part. Sure, the government didn't do this bad all on it's own, people did, but you actually think people don't realized that it is was people behind the wrong in our government? The government is the governing body, created by men and used by men. I think we all know this.

A better analogy would be this.
People created a type of vehicle(gov) that drives over people and kills them constantly because it is going fast and is out of control. What do we do, well, we can go after the people who made it, but we also need to stop and or make corrections to the vehicles(gov) killing people.
And, would it be wrong in saying that the vehicles are killing people? Sure people/men made it, but those men are at home eating dinner, the vehicles they made are out killing....Both play there part and I really think most of us limited (I didn't say no) gov types and even people on this forum realize the difference. My use of the word perception in this post can be perceived wrong, but what I was trying to convey is this, you perhaps are the one perceiving that we somehow only blame the Fed gov excluding all men who did it just because we say it is bad and doing wrong things.
In other words, it would be really crazy if every time I wanted to say something about something done by the Federal Government that is wrong if I instead have to mention every man who ever played a part in the creation of the wrong aspect I dislike, it is easier just to say the Fed Gov.....


Whether you know it or not you actually make a great point for a limited LIbertarian government. It is men that caused and created the problems. Yes, yes, yes, it was men. And, it would be a constant problem without some guidelines, and even with guidelines there will still be problems. So, some men 200+ years ago with the knowledge of Natural Law and the memories of living under a Kings rule created a Declaration of Independence and a Constitution. That was a great guideline, but, we were not vigilant enough and men changed it and created the mess we have today. The answer seems simple, return to a limited government, a Libertarian one.

[Amskeptic]

I see your point but I also think it is your perception,

It's like blaming the darkness for stealing your car instead of blaming the car thief who drove off in your car at 3 AM. "It's not that guy's fault! He couldn't have done it if it weren't for the DARKNESS! I hate dark!"

Once again, I think it is part your perception. True the darkness didn't steal the car, but it did have it's part.

The answer seems simple, return to a limited government, a Libertarian one.

I think it is *your* perception, Steve, to say that the darkness was indeed partially responsible for the theft of a car. In no way can anyone claim that darkness is responsible for the theft of a car. To up the idiocy of that claim, a person can drown in the ocean. The ocean is not responsible for the drowning. "But it is," you say, "in part."

I think it is *your perception* that can look around at this modern evolved industrial economy/culture that is unfuckingbelievablymorecomplicated than anything envisioned by the Founding Fathers, and conclude that the answer is to turn back.
Colin
(Velokid1, I do not know if it is exasperation or your committed belief that American government is a joke. I would recommend a step back in history to look around at how the majority of human beings have survived under varying styles of leadership over the course of civilization. American government is a true accomplishment infected by small gnats of self-centered twits. Sit with me some night overlooking the L.A. metro basin and marvel that the below actually works)