01 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by zeeblebotI don't click your links - not since the Vietnam-War-airbrushed-out-U.S.-wars-website that you had me go to. Never again. Sorry.
at the bottom of this page there is a link titled "1". click on THAT link, then scroll down 3 and 4 posts.
01 Jun 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe best of all systems is that there is a difficult to alter set of laws upon which society can depend, a Constitution.
So is it better to have an autocrat who can just grab what he wants from people's wallets?
Is it better to have no government at all?
No. So what is this objection against so-called "mob rule" based on? Good ole Friedman fetishism again?
No government usually degenerates into tyranny or oligarchy. Democracy usually degenerates into anarchy.
Only a government of laws rather than men is better, but it is hard to keep. Ask Mr. Franklin.
01 Jun 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraBureaucracies, once established, become self aware and their primary job is survival, as it is with all entities. They don't give a hoot about society, or what it thinks, only about keeping and increasing their budget.
Society determines what government bureaucrats determine.
01 Jun 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraAdd a strong framework and limitations on governments duties and powers, and serious division of powers, and I'll agree.
Obviously a representative democracy with proportional representation is needed for effective society control on government officials.
The democratic aspects must be tempered and diluted, or it is just mob rule.
02 Jun 09
Originally posted by normbenignAs far as I am aware, most democracies have a constitution. What examples can you give of democracies "usually degenerating into anarchy"?
The best of all systems is that there is a difficult to alter set of laws upon which society can depend, a Constitution.
No government usually degenerates into tyranny or oligarchy. Democracy usually degenerates into anarchy.
Only a government of laws rather than men is better, but it is hard to keep. Ask Mr. Franklin.
02 Jun 09
Originally posted by normbenignThat's true. But their bosses, steered by the popular vote, do care about limiting the budget. This is why there tends to be so much bureaucracy in dictatorships (and other badly functioning governments) and companies who have a monopoly - there is no effective outside control.
Bureaucracies, once established, become self aware and their primary job is survival, as it is with all entities. They don't give a hoot about society, or what it thinks, only about keeping and increasing their budget.
02 Jun 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe Greek city states are examples of competing democracies and republics founded at about the same time.
As far as I am aware, most democracies have a constitution. What examples can you give of democracies "usually degenerating into anarchy"?
About 370 BC, Plato wrote: "A democracy is a state in which the poor, gaining the upper hand, kill some and banish others, and then divide the offices among the remaining citizens equally."
About 126 BC, Polybius wrote: "The common people feel themselves oppressed by the grasping of some, and their vanity is flattered by others. Fired with evil passions, they are no longer willing to submit to control, but demand that everything be subject to their authority. The invariable result is that government assumes the noble names of free and popular, but becomes in fact the most execrable thing, mob rule."
And about 63 BC, Seneca, a Roman wrote: "Democracy is more cruel than wars or tyrants."
The article is posted by a good friend I met a few years ago http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1259556/posts
The Federalist papers on the subject of factions are also good at explaining the evils of unfettered democracy.
Even with a strong Constitution, it is evident in the US with State referendums, that limitations on government and democracy tend to slip away.
02 Jun 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIf Bureaucratic bosses cared New York would not be as heavily taxed as it is. People would not be voting with their feet and with moving vans.
That's true. But their bosses, steered by the popular vote, do care about limiting the budget. This is why there tends to be so much bureaucracy in dictatorships (and other badly functioning governments) and companies who have a monopoly - there is no effective outside control.
You identify the only solution to bureaucratic creep, which is a strong private sector economy with real competition, and little government interference protecting large entities from their own excesses.
02 Jun 09
Originally posted by normbenignNew York is not heavily taxed, but anyway. States in the US have too much autonomy and voters have too little influence on the policies.
If Bureaucratic bosses cared New York would not be as heavily taxed as it is. People would not be voting with their feet and with moving vans.
You identify the only solution to bureaucratic creep, which is a strong private sector economy with real competition, and little government interference protecting large entities from their own excesses.
You identify the only solution to bureaucratic creep, which is a strong private sector economy with real competition, and little government interference protecting large entities from their own excesses.
The solution to bureaucracy in the private sector is enough competition in the private sector - which requires government regulations to prevent the natural formation of cartels and misleading of consumers.
The solution to bureaucracy in the public sector is enough competition between political parties in the public domain.
03 Jun 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorra"New York is not heavily taxed, but anyway."
New York is not heavily taxed, but anyway. States in the US have too much autonomy and voters have too little influence on the policies.
[b]You identify the only solution to bureaucratic creep, which is a strong private sector economy with real competition, and little government interference protecting large entities from their own excesses.
T ...[text shortened]... cracy in the public sector is enough competition between political parties in the public domain.[/b]
Compared to what? Sweden? Finland? Compared to other US States it is most heavily taxed.
This is a question of individualism vs. collectivism. The collectivist isn't concerned with taxation as the government provides equally for all.
The individualist believes the exceptional deserve more than the lazy or stupid, and desired the freedom to prove it.
On the collectivist side is security, and equality.
On the individualist side is opportunity, liberty, and moral justice.
The ultimate end of collectivism is N. Korea and Zimbabwe.
You lament the freedom of our States to compete with each other, but it is clear how people choose between Statist collectivism and liberty when given a free choice. Atlas shrugs.
03 Jun 09
Originally posted by normbenignI am very much an "individualist". That why I want a government where I can choose how to lead my life with the greatest degree of freedom. This requires taxation to make sure people are not dependent on their parents or charity to invest in their future.
"New York is not heavily taxed, but anyway."
Compared to what? Sweden? Finland? Compared to other US States it is most heavily taxed.
This is a question of individualism vs. collectivism. The collectivist isn't concerned with taxation as the government provides equally for all.
The individualist believes the exceptional deserve more than the l ...[text shortened]... ople choose between Statist collectivism and liberty when given a free choice. Atlas shrugs.
You want a government where the lazy and stupid with rich parents succeed and the talented with poor parents fail. You want a society which provides little opportunity for its lower classes. You want low freedom - or you simply don't understand what freedom means. Is your view of "freedom" really so superficial that it implies being able to buy a Hummer and a 2 million dollar home for a very small percentage of the population?
Your North Korea and Zimbabwe slippery slope fallacies are pathetic.
04 Jun 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSorry but your individualism isn't. High levels of taxation aren't required to leave you free to pursue your life.
I am very much an "individualist". That why I want a government where I can choose how to lead my life with the greatest degree of freedom. This requires taxation to make sure people are not dependent on their parents or charity to invest in their future.
You want a government where the lazy and stupid with rich parents succeed and the talented with ...[text shortened]... of the population?
Your North Korea and Zimbabwe slippery slope fallacies are pathetic.
You say taxation prevents dependence on parents or charity. How is better to be dependent on government? Where in human history has government been more honest, more efficient, more compassionate than family or charity?
That isn't the history of governments. Clearly, NY residents aren't as free as those in New Hampshire. They are probably more free than citizens of Sweden, Finland and Norway.
The simple question on liberty is who should be free to choose how to spend your money? If some other entity has that freedom, you've lost it. Oh, they promise you stuff in return? So did Robert Mugabe make those promises in Zimbabwe. In the end the promises are always more than can possibly be delivered.