Pages:
Author

Topic: rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;) - page 73. (Read 907231 times)

legendary
Activity: 3892
Merit: 11105
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
Way to ignore my question.

I addressed your question sufficiently, so accordingly, probably, you should respond to my various points if you have anything substantive to add in this direction.. .

But you didn't answer it. 

In this thread, you've made some statements which show you don't really have a grasp of some basics--things like equating government with community, "will of the people", etc, and you've brushed aside some arguments with Fox News references.

So I'm merely asking to start a civil dialogue with you.  I promise to stay polite.  Please respond:

What is your definition of "government"?

My definition can be stated in a sentence.  How about you?


We seem to be in disagreement regarding the responsiveness of my previous responses, so it seems to be a big waste of time to engage in further exchange regarding these matters.  I believe that I have already sufficiently stated my position and that was merely challenging the statements of others regarding their description of no need for taxes and that government services do NOT serve useful societal purposes in light of how much they cost. 

In fact one of the most efficient and effective government services in the world is the social security system that was established in the US of A in the 1930s.  Yet, nonetheless, there is NO burden on me to back up the various multitude of status quo system, even though I have a large number of gripes regarding them.  In essence, so far, I have NOT made any real and/or significant claims regarding the dismantling of such systems in large ways, as was the logical outgrowth of the original statement made by Rpietila (that I have repeated several times to be the origination of this line of discussion).
legendary
Activity: 3892
Merit: 11105
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
... because they the welfare first reduces job opportunities. Remove jobs, then tell the people they are worth nothing because they don't have jobs, then give them the money.
 




The video is much more hilarious.    Cheesy Cheesy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=768h3Tz4Qik

that American flag should be replaced with an EU flag

Why?
legendary
Activity: 3892
Merit: 11105
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"

your being too extreme and over generalizing... show me a complex society without some community entities (otherwise known as government).  

This is where you go wrong.  Community != government.  There's a MASSIVE difference between the two.

Governments are the result of complex societies, not the cause of them. You need to have wealth in order to afford a parasite class.


I don't see anything incorrect with this assertion.. and I do NOT see anything wrong with attempting a large variety of reforms to address parasite issues.

I suspect, however, based on some of our earlier communications on the topic that you are attributing parasite class to various poor people and regular people, when the biggest and most problematic parasite classes are the very wealthy who tend to use government to rob from the poor and regular people and to fill their coffers and to prevent prosperity of regular people in order that regular people can continue to be exploited and taken advantage of and blamed for social ills.

This is a false dichotomy. It is a bogus argument to create tension, to hide the real problem. The parasite class is the political class, those who think they can decide over others using coercion. They buy support from the poor, and create poorness, through the spoils system, and the rich through the same way through corporate welfare. Everything is paid for by the victims themselves. A policy of tension, or  divide and conquer.




Sounds like you have been watching too much fox news and the like to be so detached from reality.

Not fox. By the way, reality seems to be an in-word currently.



I guess part of my point is that your perception seems to be extremely diluted if you believe that poor people are moving any kind of corruption in any kind of meaningful way.  In many instances (societies), especially in the US of A, poor people receive a very minor fraction of the benefits, and a lot of the major breaks go to the rich banks and large companies tied to finance, military, pharmacy, energy etc.

I know, but if you live off the state, you become anxious if the state's income is threatened. The same goes for all kinds of government jobs. It is not corruption. It is a delusion, because they would all be better off with a small government or no government. I don't expect everybody to agree with that without a discussion.



If you are focusing on poor people getting too many benefits or government workers being too spoiled or having too much job security, then in my view you are focusing on pie crumbs while the banks, oil tycoons, military contractors and pharmaceutical industries are running off with the lion's share of the resources and corrupting the government with money influences.  

Surely, it would be good if the people could wrestle back control of their various elected officials and the election process in order that these people would be forced to work in the public interest rather than being bought out and being scared to go against insurance companies for example...

I don't really see, short of some kind of revolution, that you could completely abolish these many governmental infrastructures.. and seems that many people agree that there is too much money corruption that is being allowed to influence elected reps away from true fighting for the needs of regular people.

Don't try to blame hate on me. The statists are the ones who peddle tension and hate. I know that corporations get welfare, and it should end. It (corporate welfare) should end first, really, (individual) welfare should end last, if you can envision a gradual diminishing of government. Still, welfare as it works, is not good for the recipients, because they the welfare first reduces job opportunities. Remove jobs, then tell the people they are worth nothing because they don't have jobs, then give them the money.
 



We have a pretty high level of agreement here (in the above bolded part);  however, the rest of your statement fails to focus on this point, and you seem to get distracted by crumbs and engaging your energy in such baloney talk about the crumbs.. when a lot of the major corruption and stealing from the government coffers is at a very much higher and more abstract level.. including currency which goes in the pockets of bank financiers and other wealthy folk that do NOT need more money.... and goes away from infrastructure and quality of life issues in order that regular people are desperate and get exploited in the workplace.. to the extent that they can find meaningful and fulfilling jobs that have not been exported to some place in which less than $1 per hour is paid.




I agree with all that, wtf. The worst is the general upfucking of the money system, QE and ZIRP. Then corporate wellfare. Go through all regulations, remove those that are unecessary and bad. As you analyze regulations, you will find that all regulations are distortions that take away freedom and prosperity. You  end up with the traditional basic functions of the state, courts, police military. You need roughly six months of thinking to also let those go.





I don't believe that by nature regulations take away freedom from individuals - except to the extent which they are focused to give advantages to the wealthy.  Surely, most of our lives would be much better if infrastructure was better, and we are able to pursue jobs and dreams with dignity.  Frequently we are told that regulation and the government are the bad guys; however, if we did not have regulations and government, it is possible that we would be getting screwed even worse by the rich and powerful b/c there would be little to no infrastructure and we would all be living in cabins with dirty water killing us.

Personally, I have the sense that the government is the vehicle to keep in check the exploiters who become too powerful and lose their sense of community (b/c of their greed); however, there are a lot of ways that government has been coopted.. and distracted to work on the wrong side and to complicate the way in which regular people are being screwed by the rich and powerful... the rich and powerful do NOT contribute their fair share, and they strive to separate themselves from contributing to community... b/c they are too busy either stealing more of what they do NOT need and/or preventing those resources from being used for broader and common application(s).
legendary
Activity: 1040
Merit: 1001
Way to ignore my question.

I addressed your question sufficiently, so accordingly, probably, you should respond to my various points if you have anything substantive to add in this direction.. .

But you didn't answer it. 

In this thread, you've made some statements which show you don't really have a grasp of some basics--things like equating government with community, "will of the people", etc, and you've brushed aside some arguments with Fox News references.

So I'm merely asking to start a civil dialogue with you.  I promise to stay polite.  Please respond:

What is your definition of "government"?

My definition can be stated in a sentence.  How about you?
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005

your being too extreme and over generalizing... show me a complex society without some community entities (otherwise known as government).  

This is where you go wrong.  Community != government.  There's a MASSIVE difference between the two.

Governments are the result of complex societies, not the cause of them. You need to have wealth in order to afford a parasite class.


I don't see anything incorrect with this assertion.. and I do NOT see anything wrong with attempting a large variety of reforms to address parasite issues.

I suspect, however, based on some of our earlier communications on the topic that you are attributing parasite class to various poor people and regular people, when the biggest and most problematic parasite classes are the very wealthy who tend to use government to rob from the poor and regular people and to fill their coffers and to prevent prosperity of regular people in order that regular people can continue to be exploited and taken advantage of and blamed for social ills.

This is a false dichotomy. It is a bogus argument to create tension, to hide the real problem. The parasite class is the political class, those who think they can decide over others using coercion. They buy support from the poor, and create poorness, through the spoils system, and the rich through the same way through corporate welfare. Everything is paid for by the victims themselves. A policy of tension, or  divide and conquer.




Sounds like you have been watching too much fox news and the like to be so detached from reality.

Not fox. By the way, reality seems to be an in-word currently.



I guess part of my point is that your perception seems to be extremely diluted if you believe that poor people are moving any kind of corruption in any kind of meaningful way.  In many instances (societies), especially in the US of A, poor people receive a very minor fraction of the benefits, and a lot of the major breaks go to the rich banks and large companies tied to finance, military, pharmacy, energy etc.

I know, but if you live off the state, you become anxious if the state's income is threatened. The same goes for all kinds of government jobs. It is not corruption. It is a delusion, because they would all be better off with a small government or no government. I don't expect everybody to agree with that without a discussion.



If you are focusing on poor people getting too many benefits or government workers being too spoiled or having too much job security, then in my view you are focusing on pie crumbs while the banks, oil tycoons, military contractors and pharmaceutical industries are running off with the lion's share of the resources and corrupting the government with money influences.  

Surely, it would be good if the people could wrestle back control of their various elected officials and the election process in order that these people would be forced to work in the public interest rather than being bought out and being scared to go against insurance companies for example...

I don't really see, short of some kind of revolution, that you could completely abolish these many governmental infrastructures.. and seems that many people agree that there is too much money corruption that is being allowed to influence elected reps away from true fighting for the needs of regular people.

Don't try to blame hate on me. The statists are the ones who peddle tension and hate. I know that corporations get welfare, and it should end. It (corporate welfare) should end first, really, (individual) welfare should end last, if you can envision a gradual diminishing of government. Still, welfare as it works, is not good for the recipients, because they the welfare first reduces job opportunities. Remove jobs, then tell the people they are worth nothing because they don't have jobs, then give them the money.
 



We have a pretty high level of agreement here (in the above bolded part);  however, the rest of your statement fails to focus on this point, and you seem to get distracted by crumbs and engaging your energy in such baloney talk about the crumbs.. when a lot of the major corruption and stealing from the government coffers is at a very much higher and more abstract level.. including currency which goes in the pockets of bank financiers and other wealthy folk that do NOT need more money.... and goes away from infrastructure and quality of life issues in order that regular people are desperate and get exploited in the workplace.. to the extent that they can find meaningful and fulfilling jobs that have not been exported to some place in which less than $1 per hour is paid.




I agree with all that, wtf. The worst is the general upfucking of the money system, QE and ZIRP. Then corporate wellfare. Go through all regulations, remove those that are unecessary and bad. As you analyze regulations, you will find that all regulations are distortions that take away freedom and prosperity. You  end up with the traditional basic functions of the state, courts, police military. You need roughly six months of thinking to also let those go.





yea until Billy Bob and his gang of bubba's show up to your house with m16 assault rifles demanding tribute payments for protecting your property

You forgot self defense, including self defence in associations. And importantly, you forgot that the mafia will only tax you, if the cost of collection is less than the proceeds.

Edit: And... you forgot that you need to be a libertarian, then think 6 months...  Smiley

legendary
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1010
he who has the gold makes the rules

your being too extreme and over generalizing... show me a complex society without some community entities (otherwise known as government).  

This is where you go wrong.  Community != government.  There's a MASSIVE difference between the two.

Governments are the result of complex societies, not the cause of them. You need to have wealth in order to afford a parasite class.


I don't see anything incorrect with this assertion.. and I do NOT see anything wrong with attempting a large variety of reforms to address parasite issues.

I suspect, however, based on some of our earlier communications on the topic that you are attributing parasite class to various poor people and regular people, when the biggest and most problematic parasite classes are the very wealthy who tend to use government to rob from the poor and regular people and to fill their coffers and to prevent prosperity of regular people in order that regular people can continue to be exploited and taken advantage of and blamed for social ills.

This is a false dichotomy. It is a bogus argument to create tension, to hide the real problem. The parasite class is the political class, those who think they can decide over others using coercion. They buy support from the poor, and create poorness, through the spoils system, and the rich through the same way through corporate welfare. Everything is paid for by the victims themselves. A policy of tension, or  divide and conquer.




Sounds like you have been watching too much fox news and the like to be so detached from reality.

Not fox. By the way, reality seems to be an in-word currently.



I guess part of my point is that your perception seems to be extremely diluted if you believe that poor people are moving any kind of corruption in any kind of meaningful way.  In many instances (societies), especially in the US of A, poor people receive a very minor fraction of the benefits, and a lot of the major breaks go to the rich banks and large companies tied to finance, military, pharmacy, energy etc.

I know, but if you live off the state, you become anxious if the state's income is threatened. The same goes for all kinds of government jobs. It is not corruption. It is a delusion, because they would all be better off with a small government or no government. I don't expect everybody to agree with that without a discussion.



If you are focusing on poor people getting too many benefits or government workers being too spoiled or having too much job security, then in my view you are focusing on pie crumbs while the banks, oil tycoons, military contractors and pharmaceutical industries are running off with the lion's share of the resources and corrupting the government with money influences.  

Surely, it would be good if the people could wrestle back control of their various elected officials and the election process in order that these people would be forced to work in the public interest rather than being bought out and being scared to go against insurance companies for example...

I don't really see, short of some kind of revolution, that you could completely abolish these many governmental infrastructures.. and seems that many people agree that there is too much money corruption that is being allowed to influence elected reps away from true fighting for the needs of regular people.

Don't try to blame hate on me. The statists are the ones who peddle tension and hate. I know that corporations get welfare, and it should end. It (corporate welfare) should end first, really, (individual) welfare should end last, if you can envision a gradual diminishing of government. Still, welfare as it works, is not good for the recipients, because they the welfare first reduces job opportunities. Remove jobs, then tell the people they are worth nothing because they don't have jobs, then give them the money.
 



We have a pretty high level of agreement here (in the above bolded part);  however, the rest of your statement fails to focus on this point, and you seem to get distracted by crumbs and engaging your energy in such baloney talk about the crumbs.. when a lot of the major corruption and stealing from the government coffers is at a very much higher and more abstract level.. including currency which goes in the pockets of bank financiers and other wealthy folk that do NOT need more money.... and goes away from infrastructure and quality of life issues in order that regular people are desperate and get exploited in the workplace.. to the extent that they can find meaningful and fulfilling jobs that have not been exported to some place in which less than $1 per hour is paid.




I agree with all that, wtf. The worst is the general upfucking of the money system, QE and ZIRP. Then corporate wellfare. Go through all regulations, remove those that are unecessary and bad. As you analyze regulations, you will find that all regulations are distortions that take away freedom and prosperity. You  end up with the traditional basic functions of the state, courts, police military. You need roughly six months of thinking to also let those go.





yea until Billy Bob and his gang of bubba's show up to your house with m16 assault rifles demanding tribute payments for protecting your property
legendary
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1010
he who has the gold makes the rules
... because they the welfare first reduces job opportunities. Remove jobs, then tell the people they are worth nothing because they don't have jobs, then give them the money.
 




The video is much more hilarious.    Cheesy Cheesy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=768h3Tz4Qik

that American flag should be replaced with an EU flag
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005

your being too extreme and over generalizing... show me a complex society without some community entities (otherwise known as government).  

This is where you go wrong.  Community != government.  There's a MASSIVE difference between the two.

Governments are the result of complex societies, not the cause of them. You need to have wealth in order to afford a parasite class.


I don't see anything incorrect with this assertion.. and I do NOT see anything wrong with attempting a large variety of reforms to address parasite issues.

I suspect, however, based on some of our earlier communications on the topic that you are attributing parasite class to various poor people and regular people, when the biggest and most problematic parasite classes are the very wealthy who tend to use government to rob from the poor and regular people and to fill their coffers and to prevent prosperity of regular people in order that regular people can continue to be exploited and taken advantage of and blamed for social ills.

This is a false dichotomy. It is a bogus argument to create tension, to hide the real problem. The parasite class is the political class, those who think they can decide over others using coercion. They buy support from the poor, and create poorness, through the spoils system, and the rich through the same way through corporate welfare. Everything is paid for by the victims themselves. A policy of tension, or  divide and conquer.




Sounds like you have been watching too much fox news and the like to be so detached from reality.

Not fox. By the way, reality seems to be an in-word currently.



I guess part of my point is that your perception seems to be extremely diluted if you believe that poor people are moving any kind of corruption in any kind of meaningful way.  In many instances (societies), especially in the US of A, poor people receive a very minor fraction of the benefits, and a lot of the major breaks go to the rich banks and large companies tied to finance, military, pharmacy, energy etc.

I know, but if you live off the state, you become anxious if the state's income is threatened. The same goes for all kinds of government jobs. It is not corruption. It is a delusion, because they would all be better off with a small government or no government. I don't expect everybody to agree with that without a discussion.



If you are focusing on poor people getting too many benefits or government workers being too spoiled or having too much job security, then in my view you are focusing on pie crumbs while the banks, oil tycoons, military contractors and pharmaceutical industries are running off with the lion's share of the resources and corrupting the government with money influences.  

Surely, it would be good if the people could wrestle back control of their various elected officials and the election process in order that these people would be forced to work in the public interest rather than being bought out and being scared to go against insurance companies for example...

I don't really see, short of some kind of revolution, that you could completely abolish these many governmental infrastructures.. and seems that many people agree that there is too much money corruption that is being allowed to influence elected reps away from true fighting for the needs of regular people.

Don't try to blame hate on me. The statists are the ones who peddle tension and hate. I know that corporations get welfare, and it should end. It (corporate welfare) should end first, really, (individual) welfare should end last, if you can envision a gradual diminishing of government. Still, welfare as it works, is not good for the recipients, because they the welfare first reduces job opportunities. Remove jobs, then tell the people they are worth nothing because they don't have jobs, then give them the money.
 



We have a pretty high level of agreement here (in the above bolded part);  however, the rest of your statement fails to focus on this point, and you seem to get distracted by crumbs and engaging your energy in such baloney talk about the crumbs.. when a lot of the major corruption and stealing from the government coffers is at a very much higher and more abstract level.. including currency which goes in the pockets of bank financiers and other wealthy folk that do NOT need more money.... and goes away from infrastructure and quality of life issues in order that regular people are desperate and get exploited in the workplace.. to the extent that they can find meaningful and fulfilling jobs that have not been exported to some place in which less than $1 per hour is paid.




I agree with all that, wtf. The worst is the general upfucking of the money system, QE and ZIRP. Then corporate wellfare. Go through all regulations, remove those that are unecessary and bad. As you analyze regulations, you will find that all regulations are distortions that take away freedom and prosperity. You  end up with the traditional basic functions of the state, courts, police military. You need roughly six months of thinking to also let those go.


legendary
Activity: 3892
Merit: 11105
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
... because they the welfare first reduces job opportunities. Remove jobs, then tell the people they are worth nothing because they don't have jobs, then give them the money.
 




The video is much more hilarious.    Cheesy Cheesy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=768h3Tz4Qik
legendary
Activity: 3892
Merit: 11105
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"

your being too extreme and over generalizing... show me a complex society without some community entities (otherwise known as government).  

This is where you go wrong.  Community != government.  There's a MASSIVE difference between the two.

Governments are the result of complex societies, not the cause of them. You need to have wealth in order to afford a parasite class.


I don't see anything incorrect with this assertion.. and I do NOT see anything wrong with attempting a large variety of reforms to address parasite issues.

I suspect, however, based on some of our earlier communications on the topic that you are attributing parasite class to various poor people and regular people, when the biggest and most problematic parasite classes are the very wealthy who tend to use government to rob from the poor and regular people and to fill their coffers and to prevent prosperity of regular people in order that regular people can continue to be exploited and taken advantage of and blamed for social ills.

This is a false dichotomy. It is a bogus argument to create tension, to hide the real problem. The parasite class is the political class, those who think they can decide over others using coercion. They buy support from the poor, and create poorness, through the spoils system, and the rich through the same way through corporate welfare. Everything is paid for by the victims themselves. A policy of tension, or  divide and conquer.




Sounds like you have been watching too much fox news and the like to be so detached from reality.

Not fox. By the way, reality seems to be an in-word currently.



I guess part of my point is that your perception seems to be extremely diluted if you believe that poor people are moving any kind of corruption in any kind of meaningful way.  In many instances (societies), especially in the US of A, poor people receive a very minor fraction of the benefits, and a lot of the major breaks go to the rich banks and large companies tied to finance, military, pharmacy, energy etc.

I know, but if you live off the state, you become anxious if the state's income is threatened. The same goes for all kinds of government jobs. It is not corruption. It is a delusion, because they would all be better off with a small government or no government. I don't expect everybody to agree with that without a discussion.



If you are focusing on poor people getting too many benefits or government workers being too spoiled or having too much job security, then in my view you are focusing on pie crumbs while the banks, oil tycoons, military contractors and pharmaceutical industries are running off with the lion's share of the resources and corrupting the government with money influences.  

Surely, it would be good if the people could wrestle back control of their various elected officials and the election process in order that these people would be forced to work in the public interest rather than being bought out and being scared to go against insurance companies for example...

I don't really see, short of some kind of revolution, that you could completely abolish these many governmental infrastructures.. and seems that many people agree that there is too much money corruption that is being allowed to influence elected reps away from true fighting for the needs of regular people.

Don't try to blame hate on me. The statists are the ones who peddle tension and hate. I know that corporations get welfare, and it should end. It (corporate welfare) should end first, really, (individual) welfare should end last, if you can envision a gradual diminishing of government. Still, welfare as it works, is not good for the recipients, because they the welfare first reduces job opportunities. Remove jobs, then tell the people they are worth nothing because they don't have jobs, then give them the money.
 



We have a pretty high level of agreement here (in the above bolded part);  however, the rest of your statement fails to focus on this point, and you seem to get distracted by crumbs and engaging your energy in such baloney talk about the crumbs.. when a lot of the major corruption and stealing from the government coffers is at a very much higher and more abstract level.. including currency which goes in the pockets of bank financiers and other wealthy folk that do NOT need more money.... and goes away from infrastructure and quality of life issues in order that regular people are desperate and get exploited in the workplace.. to the extent that they can find meaningful and fulfilling jobs that have not been exported to some place in which less than $1 per hour is paid.





sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 254
... because they the welfare first reduces job opportunities. Remove jobs, then tell the people they are worth nothing because they don't have jobs, then give them the money.
 

legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005

your being too extreme and over generalizing... show me a complex society without some community entities (otherwise known as government).  

This is where you go wrong.  Community != government.  There's a MASSIVE difference between the two.

Governments are the result of complex societies, not the cause of them. You need to have wealth in order to afford a parasite class.


I don't see anything incorrect with this assertion.. and I do NOT see anything wrong with attempting a large variety of reforms to address parasite issues.

I suspect, however, based on some of our earlier communications on the topic that you are attributing parasite class to various poor people and regular people, when the biggest and most problematic parasite classes are the very wealthy who tend to use government to rob from the poor and regular people and to fill their coffers and to prevent prosperity of regular people in order that regular people can continue to be exploited and taken advantage of and blamed for social ills.

This is a false dichotomy. It is a bogus argument to create tension, to hide the real problem. The parasite class is the political class, those who think they can decide over others using coercion. They buy support from the poor, and create poorness, through the spoils system, and the rich through the same way through corporate welfare. Everything is paid for by the victims themselves. A policy of tension, or  divide and conquer.




Sounds like you have been watching too much fox news and the like to be so detached from reality.

Not fox. By the way, reality seems to be an in-word currently.



I guess part of my point is that your perception seems to be extremely diluted if you believe that poor people are moving any kind of corruption in any kind of meaningful way.  In many instances (societies), especially in the US of A, poor people receive a very minor fraction of the benefits, and a lot of the major breaks go to the rich banks and large companies tied to finance, military, pharmacy, energy etc.

I know, but if you live off the state, you become anxious if the state's income is threatened. The same goes for all kinds of government jobs. It is not corruption. It is a delusion, because they would all be better off with a small government or no government. I don't expect everybody to agree with that without a discussion.



If you are focusing on poor people getting too many benefits or government workers being too spoiled or having too much job security, then in my view you are focusing on pie crumbs while the banks, oil tycoons, military contractors and pharmaceutical industries are running off with the lion's share of the resources and corrupting the government with money influences.  

Surely, it would be good if the people could wrestle back control of their various elected officials and the election process in order that these people would be forced to work in the public interest rather than being bought out and being scared to go against insurance companies for example...

I don't really see, short of some kind of revolution, that you could completely abolish these many governmental infrastructures.. and seems that many people agree that there is too much money corruption that is being allowed to influence elected reps away from true fighting for the needs of regular people.

Don't try to blame hate on me. The statists are the ones who peddle tension and hate. I know that corporations get welfare, and it should end. It (corporate welfare) should end first, really, (individual) welfare should end last, if you can envision a gradual diminishing of government. Still, welfare as it works, is not good for the recipients, because they the welfare first reduces job opportunities. Remove jobs, then tell the people they are worth nothing because they don't have jobs, then give them the money.
 
legendary
Activity: 2016
Merit: 1259


I know, but if you live off the state, you become anxious if the state's income is threatened. The same goes for all kinds of government jobs. It is not corruption. It is a delusion, because they would all be better off with a small government or no government. I don't expect everybody to agree with that without a discussionbludgeon.


FTFY.  People will ferociously back their meal ticket, sustainable or not. 
legendary
Activity: 3892
Merit: 11105
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"

your being too extreme and over generalizing... show me a complex society without some community entities (otherwise known as government).  

This is where you go wrong.  Community != government.  There's a MASSIVE difference between the two.

Governments are the result of complex societies, not the cause of them. You need to have wealth in order to afford a parasite class.


I don't see anything incorrect with this assertion.. and I do NOT see anything wrong with attempting a large variety of reforms to address parasite issues.

I suspect, however, based on some of our earlier communications on the topic that you are attributing parasite class to various poor people and regular people, when the biggest and most problematic parasite classes are the very wealthy who tend to use government to rob from the poor and regular people and to fill their coffers and to prevent prosperity of regular people in order that regular people can continue to be exploited and taken advantage of and blamed for social ills.

This is a false dichotomy. It is a bogus argument to create tension, to hide the real problem. The parasite class is the political class, those who think they can decide over others using coercion. They buy support from the poor, and create poorness, through the spoils system, and the rich through the same way through corporate welfare. Everything is paid for by the victims themselves. A policy of tension, or  divide and conquer.




Sounds like you have been watching too much fox news and the like to be so detached from reality.

Not fox. By the way, reality seems to be an in-word currently.



I guess part of my point is that your perception seems to be extremely diluted if you believe that poor people are moving any kind of corruption in any kind of meaningful way.  In many instances (societies), especially in the US of A, poor people receive a very minor fraction of the benefits, and a lot of the major breaks go to the rich banks and large companies tied to finance, military, pharmacy, energy etc.

I know, but if you live off the state, you become anxious if the state's income is threatened. The same goes for all kinds of government jobs. It is not corruption. It is a delusion, because they would all be better off with a small government or no government. I don't expect everybody to agree with that without a discussion.



If you are focusing on poor people getting too many benefits or government workers being too spoiled or having too much job security, then in my view you are focusing on pie crumbs while the banks, oil tycoons, military contractors and pharmaceutical industries are running off with the lion's share of the resources and corrupting the government with money influences. 

Surely, it would be good if the people could wrestle back control of their various elected officials and the election process in order that these people would be forced to work in the public interest rather than being bought out and being scared to go against insurance companies for example...

I don't really see, short of some kind of revolution, that you could completely abolish these many governmental infrastructures.. and seems that many people agree that there is too much money corruption that is being allowed to influence elected reps away from true fighting for the needs of regular people.
legendary
Activity: 3892
Merit: 11105
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
Way to ignore my question.

I addressed your question sufficiently, so accordingly, probably, you should respond to my various points if you have anything substantive to add in this direction.. .
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005

your being too extreme and over generalizing... show me a complex society without some community entities (otherwise known as government).  

This is where you go wrong.  Community != government.  There's a MASSIVE difference between the two.

Governments are the result of complex societies, not the cause of them. You need to have wealth in order to afford a parasite class.


I don't see anything incorrect with this assertion.. and I do NOT see anything wrong with attempting a large variety of reforms to address parasite issues.

I suspect, however, based on some of our earlier communications on the topic that you are attributing parasite class to various poor people and regular people, when the biggest and most problematic parasite classes are the very wealthy who tend to use government to rob from the poor and regular people and to fill their coffers and to prevent prosperity of regular people in order that regular people can continue to be exploited and taken advantage of and blamed for social ills.

This is a false dichotomy. It is a bogus argument to create tension, to hide the real problem. The parasite class is the political class, those who think they can decide over others using coercion. They buy support from the poor, and create poorness, through the spoils system, and the rich through the same way through corporate welfare. Everything is paid for by the victims themselves. A policy of tension, or  divide and conquer.




Sounds like you have been watching too much fox news and the like to be so detached from reality.

Not fox. By the way, reality seems to be an in-word currently.



I guess part of my point is that your perception seems to be extremely diluted if you believe that poor people are moving any kind of corruption in any kind of meaningful way.  In many instances (societies), especially in the US of A, poor people receive a very minor fraction of the benefits, and a lot of the major breaks go to the rich banks and large companies tied to finance, military, pharmacy, energy etc.

I know, but if you live off the state, you become anxious if the state's income is threatened. The same goes for all kinds of government jobs. It is not corruption. It is a delusion, because they would all be better off with a small government or no government. I don't expect everybody to agree with that without a discussion.



legendary
Activity: 1040
Merit: 1001
Way to ignore my question.
legendary
Activity: 3892
Merit: 11105
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"

Sounds like you have been watching too much fox news and the like to be so detached from reality.

What is your definition of "government"?

I'm not asking for what governments should be or should do, but rather, what they are.  If an alien was watching the Earth from above, how would he describe this thing humans call "government"?

This thread of the discussion began with Rptiela asserting that taxes needed to be abolished b/c there were NO societal benefits brought from such and inferring that some how voluntary institutions would take care of these issues, once government is removed.

In this regard, it is NOT my burden to establish what the parameters of this discussion are.  I am merely asserting that such broad and sweeping statements in that direction are baloney and meaningless b/c they fail to involve any plan about how supposedly we would transition from the current state of affairs to some pie in the sky governmentless (taxless) society.

Generally speaking, though, government does seem to encompass a large variety of community institutions to potentially address public infrastructure and health and welfare issues that would be difficult to address individually.. and in any event government has become very complex b/c it functions on so many levels and services overlap and are intertwined in many aspects of society.... .
legendary
Activity: 3892
Merit: 11105
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"

your being too extreme and over generalizing... show me a complex society without some community entities (otherwise known as government).  

This is where you go wrong.  Community != government.  There's a MASSIVE difference between the two.

Governments are the result of complex societies, not the cause of them. You need to have wealth in order to afford a parasite class.


I don't see anything incorrect with this assertion.. and I do NOT see anything wrong with attempting a large variety of reforms to address parasite issues.

I suspect, however, based on some of our earlier communications on the topic that you are attributing parasite class to various poor people and regular people, when the biggest and most problematic parasite classes are the very wealthy who tend to use government to rob from the poor and regular people and to fill their coffers and to prevent prosperity of regular people in order that regular people can continue to be exploited and taken advantage of and blamed for social ills.

This is a false dichotomy. It is a bogus argument to create tension, to hide the real problem. The parasite class is the political class, those who think they can decide over others using coercion. They buy support from the poor, and create poorness, through the spoils system, and the rich through the same way through corporate welfare. Everything is paid for by the victims themselves. A policy of tension, or  divide and conquer.




Sounds like you have been watching too much fox news and the like to be so detached from reality.

Not fox. By the way, reality seems to be an in-word currently.



I guess part of my point is that your perception seems to be extremely diluted if you believe that poor people are moving any kind of corruption in any kind of meaningful way.  In many instances (societies), especially in the US of A, poor people receive a very minor fraction of the benefits, and a lot of the major breaks go to the rich banks and large companies tied to finance, military, pharmacy, energy etc.
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 254
...how would he describe this thing humans call "government"?

Give clueless aliens this link:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government



  ~Your Beneficent Reptilian Overlords.
Pages:
Jump to: