manowar821
Diamond Member
I like when people diarrhea in my direction.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
The Federal Reserve to hire former Enron lobbyist
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I like when people diarrhea in my direction.
bamacre
Lifer
Did the American people in mass ask government to limit how much sugar we import into our country? Was it the American peoples' idea to invade Iraq? Was it the American peoples' idea to make marijuana illegal? Americans make most political decisions out of fear, and it is government and special interests who lobby it that dish it all out.
I think I may have spotted a deception right off the bat here in your reply. What's this business of 'in mass' and where in "the government acts upon the people's wishes" do we see anything about in mass? My understanding of our government is that we are allowed to petition it to address our issues. I can do that myself or I can form a group of many with the same issues as me and speak for a group. So somebody wanted a limit on sugar, petitioned for that and got it. If you don't like it and can convince politicians they will be out of a job if they don't import more, go for it. My guess is that the folk who want sugar limits probably scratched some other politicians backs and helped them with other bills in exchange for a vote to limit sugar. Put up some campaign contributions for cheep sugar. I bet that might get you some votes. I bet one guy with a lot of cash can get things done in Washington. It serves the people. I think it is called politics.
LegendKiller
Lifer
Obviously he thinks that if they are decisions he agrees with, the politicians did the right thing in representing the people. If they are decisions he disagrees with nobody supported it and the politicians are corrupt. He believes in the rule of the mob.
bamacre
Lifer
A deception? What I meant by "in mass" was that it wasn't the American people in general that petitioned government to limit the amount of sugar that could be imported into the US, it was a small group of American people, i.e., farmers, i.e., special interests, who figured they could raise their prices by not having to compete with imported sugar. Guess who else loves it? Corn farmers, who can sell HFCS cheaper than natural sugar. Did government act for the people? No, government acted against the American people who still pay more for sugar than anyone else in the world. The answer is not to give government unlimited power then let voters vote down the evil things government does. That doesn't work, obviously.
Nothing known gets rid of the imperfections of power - the problem is that you see that only in regard to "government" and not to power in private as well.
You should probably go read Thom Hartmann's "Unequal Protection" for the interesting history about when the two combined, the history of how Queen Elizabeth paved the way for the corporation, where 'the government' and 'the corporatocracy' overlapped - and the government abused its power by granting special privileges to the corporation whose profits went into their pockets (and which led directly to the American Revolution).
In your libertarian utopia, things would return to how they long have been - the tyranny of economic inequality making a mockery of theoretical politics rights you 'cherish'.
It woud be oligarchy, but with stark harshness for most and massive wealth for a few - not some ideal competition, because competition is not in the interests of the oligarchy.
The solution to corn providers having excessive influence in Congress is to improve democracy and for the people to take the responsibility to exercise their democratic rights, not to put Libertarian tyranny in place when the problem would like be worse as corn producers told the public to stuff it, now that they lacked ay real government to stand up to them. And you have to consider the limited options, that there will be some problems, in the spirit of democracy being 'the worst government except others that have been tried'.
It's better than, say, in the documentary I recently saw about power in the Ukraine, where an American company trying to provide power was told by the corrupt government whose power to keep on, and to turn off the public's power to do so. Libertarianism offers that under different names, while Democracy helps with it.
Improvoe our democracy, fight for campaign finance reform, for ranked voting (which will help Libertarians get elected, by the way).
Help build the political process by which corrupt laws such as the food industry's laws criminalizing free speech against their foods are better opposed by the public, because the media is less corrupted by corpotocracy (something that Libertariansim doesn't help, but hurts) and the publi is informed and opposes that abuse, better than just because Oprah was affected by it.
Admittedly, I have concerns about how democracy has never solved the 'tyranny of the majority' issues even with constitutional rights for the individual mitigating the problem; it has never solved the problem with the fact that 300 million in North American can vote selfishly on the policy about what happens to the people of other parts of the world who get no say. But that's a problem that exists as much and more under other systems.
I can look at how our population is still to politically child-like - how sports seems to get a lot more attention than policy, how issues like torture are debated with childish fallacies - yet I can also note the progress democracy has uniquely supported, if over far too long, I can look at how injustices once the nrom are now not politically acceptable, at how universal rights are closer and closer, one barrier overcome after another.
Libertarianism is a little like addressing the problem of having to stop at a stop sign when there is no other traffic by making all traffic laws voluntary.
You might be right about sugar corruption - but that doesn't mean the solution isn't to fix democracy. not to cripple the people's power against the corporatocracy.
bamacre: A deception? What I meant by "in mass" was that it wasn't the American people in general that petitioned government to limit the amount of sugar that could be imported into the US, it was a small group of American people, i.e., farmers, i.e., special interests, who figured they could raise their prices by not having to compete with imported sugar. Guess who else loves it? Corn farmers, who can sell HFCS cheaper than natural sugar. Did government act for the people? No, government acted against the American people who still pay more for sugar than anyone else in the world. The answer is not to give government unlimited power then let voters vote down the evil things government does. That doesn't work, obviously.
How, exactly, is anybody giving government unlimited power and are then able to vote down the evil they do? The reason we could vote down the 'evil' of government is because it's power is not unlimited. The reason we don't is because the American people are busy trying to survive and don't have time to pay attention. We don't make the effort to vote in our own interest.
How, exactly, is anybody giving government unlimited power and are then able to vote down the evil they do? The reason we could vote down the 'evil' of government is because it's power is not unlimited. The reason we don't is because the American people are busy trying to survive and don't have time to pay attention. We don't make the effort to vote in our own interest.
bamacre
Lifer
In one way, you answered your own question. 😀
The government has almost unlimited power over our economy. That is not to say they have abused it to the full extent, but whether or not they have is irrelevant. It is the legal authority that is relevant. Now, you are correct, the government does not have "unlimited power," we still have freedom of speech and freedom of assembly (well, as long as you're in a free speech zone 😉 ) but if the government has authority to print money at will, tax at will, regulate and nationalize business at will, etc., then what do the leftover rights we have matter? And if we bothered to utilize those rights to a significant level, would those come under attack? I think the evidence shows the answer to that question is "yes." The ignorance and apathy of American (non)voters is not an argument for bigger government, it is IMO, an argument for smaller, limited government. And a damn good one.
bamacre
Lifer
That is simply not true, neither statement is true.
Limiting the power of government further empowers people.
Your second statement is false because people would not have governmental powers. They would not be able to declare war, arrest and imprison others, they would be bound by legal contracts and law.
What is the difference between being bound by legal contracts and law and being bound by the state, in other words legal contracts and laws. Big or small what is the difference if you are bound? If you are bound there is a power binding you and it makes no difference if you are bound by a midget or a giant. The giant and the midget are of different sizes but the strength of the bonds are the same, sufficient to bind you.
b: In one way, you answered your own question. 😀
M: I don't think so. I don't see an answer because I don't think there is one.
b: The government has almost unlimited power over our economy.
M: What does this mean? They don't have much control over the fact that people can't pay their mortgages, do they?
b: That is not to say they have abused it to the full extent, but whether or not they have is irrelevant. It is the legal authority that is relevant.
M: Like I said above, if the legal authority is from a midget or a giant, it is legal authority.
b: Now, you are correct, the government does not have "unlimited power," we still have freedom of speech and freedom of assembly (well, as long as you're in a free speech zone 😉 ) but if the government has authority to print money at will, tax at will, regulate and nationalize business at will, etc., then what do the leftover rights we have matter?
M: I would say they matter a great deal. And who is the government doing all this for? Us, maybe?
b: And if we bothered to utilize those rights to a significant level, would those come under attack? I think the evidence shows the answer to that question is "yes."
M: What evidence. How can you have evidence for something that hasn't happened, an 'if' question, a hypothetical?
b: The ignorance and apathy of American (non)voters is not an argument for bigger government, it is IMO, an argument for smaller, limited government. And a damn good one.
M: I never said it was an argument for anything, and I do not accept your assurances that it is a good argument for limited government. It seems to me that because you believe something you simply do not see that what you believe does not make it real. Prove, give evidence that it is such an argument, don't just tell me it is. I am have a bad habit of questioning everything. I even question whether I do question everything.
M: I don't think so. I don't see an answer because I don't think there is one.
b: The government has almost unlimited power over our economy.
M: What does this mean? They don't have much control over the fact that people can't pay their mortgages, do they?
b: That is not to say they have abused it to the full extent, but whether or not they have is irrelevant. It is the legal authority that is relevant.
M: Like I said above, if the legal authority is from a midget or a giant, it is legal authority.
b: Now, you are correct, the government does not have "unlimited power," we still have freedom of speech and freedom of assembly (well, as long as you're in a free speech zone 😉 ) but if the government has authority to print money at will, tax at will, regulate and nationalize business at will, etc., then what do the leftover rights we have matter?
M: I would say they matter a great deal. And who is the government doing all this for? Us, maybe?
b: And if we bothered to utilize those rights to a significant level, would those come under attack? I think the evidence shows the answer to that question is "yes."
M: What evidence. How can you have evidence for something that hasn't happened, an 'if' question, a hypothetical?
b: The ignorance and apathy of American (non)voters is not an argument for bigger government, it is IMO, an argument for smaller, limited government. And a damn good one.
M: I never said it was an argument for anything, and I do not accept your assurances that it is a good argument for limited government. It seems to me that because you believe something you simply do not see that what you believe does not make it real. Prove, give evidence that it is such an argument, don't just tell me it is. I am have a bad habit of questioning everything. I even question whether I do question everything.
BoberFett
Lifer
Contracts are between parties who agree explicitly on the terms. If they did not, no contract would be formed. Government is a blanket contract. Only the government side has to agree. As for the citizen, all he can do is sit back and take whatever the mob decides.
Government rule is a completely assymetric relationship, something people like Craig bitch about all the time when it comes to corporations but he'll happily submit to the same thing when it's in the form of a law.
You and Craig should love the California gay marriage ban. It's true democracy and government rule in action.
BF: Contracts are between parties who agree explicitly on the terms. If they did not, no contract would be formed. Government is a blanket contract. Only the government side has to agree. As for the citizen, all he can do is sit back and take whatever the mob decides.
M: The constitution is a contract too, and it gave the government its powers. The people agreed to be bound by it reserving their rights to change it by ammendment. Government exists not because people enter contracts to which both sides agree, but because people enter contracts to which they both agree and then one side, having gotten what it wants, decides to forego its side of the deal.
BF: Government rule is a completely assymetric relationship, something people like Craig bitch about all the time when it comes to corporations but he'll happily submit to the same thing when it's in the form of a law.
M: All power of enforcement has to be asymetrical otherwise there can't be enforcement.
BF: You and Craig should love the California gay marriage ban. It's true democracy and government rule in action.
M: I don't love it at all. A bunch of bigots took to the law to take rights away from some people. The job now is to get them to see they were wrong. I have no right to go out and start shooting bigots any more than folk on the right have of shooting abortion doctors. We have a contract that the law is the law until we change it.
We are our own reflection. There is only one way to change the world. Make you, yourself, reflect the Will of God. Nothing can stand before the Will of God.
The hatred of Gays is dying because it is not the Will of God. And if you want to know what the Will of God is or what such a silly thing could possibly mean, all you have to do is love.
M: The constitution is a contract too, and it gave the government its powers. The people agreed to be bound by it reserving their rights to change it by ammendment. Government exists not because people enter contracts to which both sides agree, but because people enter contracts to which they both agree and then one side, having gotten what it wants, decides to forego its side of the deal.
BF: Government rule is a completely assymetric relationship, something people like Craig bitch about all the time when it comes to corporations but he'll happily submit to the same thing when it's in the form of a law.
M: All power of enforcement has to be asymetrical otherwise there can't be enforcement.
BF: You and Craig should love the California gay marriage ban. It's true democracy and government rule in action.
M: I don't love it at all. A bunch of bigots took to the law to take rights away from some people. The job now is to get them to see they were wrong. I have no right to go out and start shooting bigots any more than folk on the right have of shooting abortion doctors. We have a contract that the law is the law until we change it.
We are our own reflection. There is only one way to change the world. Make you, yourself, reflect the Will of God. Nothing can stand before the Will of God.
The hatred of Gays is dying because it is not the Will of God. And if you want to know what the Will of God is or what such a silly thing could possibly mean, all you have to do is love.
bamacre
Lifer
They did. It was the Federal Reserve that created the asset bubble to begin with, along with government subsidizing house guying, etc.
But your point here I think is that the government doesn't have a magic wand to make things better. And a big problem is, they think they do. But I didn't mean they have total control in this manner.
Doesn't make it right.
"Us" is relative. They aren't doing it for me. Rather, they are doing the vast majority of it for special interests.
Free speech zones. Just one, but a very good example. Kent State shootings. There are more.
Government seems to always deal with the symptoms rather than the disease. Protests, an unhappy populace is a symptom. The disease is often whatever they are unhappy with.
I knew you'd ask. 😀
The more ignorant and apathetic the populace is, the more government is capable of tyranny. It is more corruptible. Government is like a vacuum, it will suck up and retain any power it can. Slave owners didn't want their slaves to learn how to read, didn't want them reading books, they didn't want them to learn. Look at the Republican party and the foolish Religious Right. Did the Republicans give them small government? Fiscal responsibility? Did they outlaw abortion? Nope, and they still have these people in their pocket. Now, I am sure that one will make the argument that an ignorant and apathetic populace would need a bigger government, someone to help make decisions for them. But government cannot provide this without taking from those not ignorant and apathetic. And the bigger it becomes, the more they take. And the more they take, the more those not ignorant and apathetic fight back and abuse the government powers.
edit: Hey, the argument between you and BoberFett is another good one to add. Foolish and bigoted population using government to take away rights.
I didn't get what I asked for. I got what I contracted for, democracy, the chance to have my own impute into what the rules are, with the proviso that I would go with the majority in terms of personal compliance, that I would reap the benefits and the negatives of law.
And, we are evolving.
b: They did. It was the Federal Reserve that created the asset bubble to begin with, along with government subsidizing house guying, etc.
M: Well well, then they can just create a solution since they have such tremendous power.
b: But your point here I think is that the government doesn't have a magic wand to make things better. And a big problem is, they think they do. But I didn't mean they have total control in this manner.
M: Thank you, I was pretty sure they don't have total control, just enough control to fuck things up but never fix anything, right?
b: Doesn't make it right.
M: The right or wrong is not at issue. The point is that large or small you are bound and you, given this, are not facing the fact that bound is bound, large or small. One is not better than the other.
b: "Us" is relative. They aren't doing it for me. Rather, they are doing the vast majority of it for special interests.
M: Yes, 'us', as in those of us who understand our interests and lobby for them and 'us' as in those who haven't a clue as to what is going on.
b: I knew you'd ask. 😀
The more ignorant and apathetic the populace is, the more government is capable of tyranny. It is more corruptible. Government is like a vacuum, it will suck up and retain any power it can. Slave owners didn't want their slaves to learn how to read, didn't want them reading books, they didn't want them to learn.
M: Yup, and it took a big fat government to make them stop and create universal education, which, sadly, you have to pay for.
b: Look at the Republican party and the foolish Religious Right. Did the Republicans give them small government? Fiscal responsibility? Did they outlaw abortion? Nope, and they still have these people in their pocket.
M: There is no fool like a Republican fool, eh?
b: Now, I am sure that one will make the argument that an ignorant and apathetic populace would need a bigger government, someone to help make decisions for them. But government cannot provide this without taking from those not ignorant and apathetic.
M: Huh? Those elitists who know what is good for the masses ARE the ones who are not ignorant and apathetic, and, because they are almost always wealthy, will be taking from exactly themselves, along with a few extra sheep, perhaps, like you, who think they are the ones who are aware and active.
b: And the bigger it becomes, the more they take. And the more they take, the more those not ignorant and apathetic fight back and abuse the government powers.
M: You are the ignorant and apathetic. You want to substitute your notions of what is good and proper for what others think is. You picture yourself as one who is enlightened and aware, just like the people you bitch about. You say small government, somebody else says big. No difference at all.
You are a mirror of the world. You reflect what the world is and what the world is is a reflection of you. You look out there to change the world when all you can do is change yourself.
b: edit: Hey, the argument between you and BoberFett is another good one to add. Foolish and bigoted population using government to take away rights.
M: The same government that will one day give them back. The government is us in the collective and we evolve or can.
M: Well well, then they can just create a solution since they have such tremendous power.
b: But your point here I think is that the government doesn't have a magic wand to make things better. And a big problem is, they think they do. But I didn't mean they have total control in this manner.
M: Thank you, I was pretty sure they don't have total control, just enough control to fuck things up but never fix anything, right?
b: Doesn't make it right.
M: The right or wrong is not at issue. The point is that large or small you are bound and you, given this, are not facing the fact that bound is bound, large or small. One is not better than the other.
b: "Us" is relative. They aren't doing it for me. Rather, they are doing the vast majority of it for special interests.
M: Yes, 'us', as in those of us who understand our interests and lobby for them and 'us' as in those who haven't a clue as to what is going on.
b: I knew you'd ask. 😀
The more ignorant and apathetic the populace is, the more government is capable of tyranny. It is more corruptible. Government is like a vacuum, it will suck up and retain any power it can. Slave owners didn't want their slaves to learn how to read, didn't want them reading books, they didn't want them to learn.
M: Yup, and it took a big fat government to make them stop and create universal education, which, sadly, you have to pay for.
b: Look at the Republican party and the foolish Religious Right. Did the Republicans give them small government? Fiscal responsibility? Did they outlaw abortion? Nope, and they still have these people in their pocket.
M: There is no fool like a Republican fool, eh?
b: Now, I am sure that one will make the argument that an ignorant and apathetic populace would need a bigger government, someone to help make decisions for them. But government cannot provide this without taking from those not ignorant and apathetic.
M: Huh? Those elitists who know what is good for the masses ARE the ones who are not ignorant and apathetic, and, because they are almost always wealthy, will be taking from exactly themselves, along with a few extra sheep, perhaps, like you, who think they are the ones who are aware and active.
b: And the bigger it becomes, the more they take. And the more they take, the more those not ignorant and apathetic fight back and abuse the government powers.
M: You are the ignorant and apathetic. You want to substitute your notions of what is good and proper for what others think is. You picture yourself as one who is enlightened and aware, just like the people you bitch about. You say small government, somebody else says big. No difference at all.
You are a mirror of the world. You reflect what the world is and what the world is is a reflection of you. You look out there to change the world when all you can do is change yourself.
b: edit: Hey, the argument between you and BoberFett is another good one to add. Foolish and bigoted population using government to take away rights.
M: The same government that will one day give them back. The government is us in the collective and we evolve or can.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
