Government is regulation. Regulation is government.
Whenever you talk about deregulation, you're asking for democracy of the dollar. Which would you rather have, one dollar = one vote, or one man = one vote. If you picked the latter, the only way you can insure that one man will equal one vote is to regulate the power of money. Money doesn't police itself.
VMAT2 (my political counter-balance) tells me that I should use the word Oligarchy to describe the common enemy between liberal progressives and libertarians. It's my opinion that oligarchy, fascism, dictatorship, whatever you want to call it, comes easier through democracy of the dollar than through democracy of the people.
There is a difference between downsizing government and decentralizing government. Giving more power to the states is one way to decentralize the government, but that's not necessarily downsizing the government. Downsizing would be privatizing or neglecting government. I'm tempted to say that "privatized government" is a contradiction in terms. I agree that locally elected officials having more power than federally elected officials is a good thing. I don't agree that police, firefighting, education, medicine, etc, are better handled by the private sector. As for taxes spent on social programs, we don't have a choice as to whether or not we pay, but instead if we'd rather pay for the proactive (education and welfare) or the reactive (law enforcement and Incarceration.) I think the reactive is more expensive.
It doesn't matter if a government program is failing, the solution is usually to repair it rather than remove it. Until you fill the void completely, you will need the program.
There are plenty of services that are better handled by the private sector such as entertainment, manufacturing, mining, farming, etc. But any service that is both required and easily corrupted should be handled by the government. Any industry that could potentially harm citizens (not just customers) with their products, factories, or business practices should be regulated by the government. Any necessary service where looking-good is more monetarily profitable than doing-good should be non-profit or at least regulated by a competent government. And if the government does a bad job at it, then replace the government with more competent people or a better system.
We all know that too much power in too few hands is a dangers thing. But the amount of power it takes to run a society as complex as we live in cannot be spared. I'm all for decentralizing the power. But downsizing (weakening) it is just stupid.
Your thoughts?
Full Version: Some Advice to Libertarians.
Bill, I agree with your analysis...
I Googled Decentralism and was surprised to find that the meme is already growing strong.
This position could lead to a new political party that could rival the two major parties, the Decentralist Party of America. It could unify Libertarians and Liberal Progressives,
This position could lead to a new political party that could rival the two major parties, the Decentralist Party of America. It could unify Libertarians and Liberal Progressives,
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Nov 11 2009, 08:32 PM) 
I Googled Decentralism and was surprised to find that the meme is already growing strong.
This position could lead to a new political party that could rival the two major parties, the Decentralist Party of America. It could unify Libertarians and Liberal Progressives,
This position could lead to a new political party that could rival the two major parties, the Decentralist Party of America. It could unify Libertarians and Liberal Progressives,
How could we state Decentralist Party in a positive way?
QUOTE(rla @ Nov 11 2009, 10:45 PM)
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Nov 11 2009, 08:32 PM)
I Googled Decentralism and was surprised to find that the meme is already growing strong.
This position could lead to a new political party that could rival the two major parties, the Decentralist Party of America. It could unify Libertarians and Liberal Progressives,
This position could lead to a new political party that could rival the two major parties, the Decentralist Party of America. It could unify Libertarians and Liberal Progressives,
How could we state Decentralist Party in a positive way?
Perhaps, "Community-based Democracy" is a more positive statement of what the concept refers to
in the political domain?
QUOTE(rla @ Nov 13 2009, 12:54 PM)
QUOTE(rla @ Nov 11 2009, 10:45 PM)
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Nov 11 2009, 08:32 PM)
I Googled Decentralism and was surprised to find that the meme is already growing strong.
This position could lead to a new political party that could rival the two major parties, the Decentralist Party of America. It could unify Libertarians and Liberal Progressives,
This position could lead to a new political party that could rival the two major parties, the Decentralist Party of America. It could unify Libertarians and Liberal Progressives,
How could we state Decentralist Party in a positive way?
The defining characteristic of a Republican is one who doesn't think that the majority of people is capable of voting for what's best for themselves. Libertarians have a little more faith in the individual to make smart decisions, but have a little less faith in government to solve problems. Libertarians have a little too much faith in money to solve it's own problems, in other words democracy of the dollar over democracy of the people. If you take either philosophy to its logical conclusion, neither a true Republican nor a true Libertarian is a big fan of democracy of the people, even if they claim to be.
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Nov 14 2009, 11:10 AM)
QUOTE(rla @ Nov 13 2009, 12:54 PM)
QUOTE(rla @ Nov 11 2009, 10:45 PM)
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Nov 11 2009, 08:32 PM)
I Googled Decentralism and was surprised to find that the meme is already growing strong.
This position could lead to a new political party that could rival the two major parties, the Decentralist Party of America. It could unify Libertarians and Liberal Progressives,
This position could lead to a new political party that could rival the two major parties, the Decentralist Party of America. It could unify Libertarians and Liberal Progressives,
How could we state Decentralist Party in a positive way?
The defining characteristic of a Republican is one who doesn't think that the majority of people is capable of voting for what's best for themselves. Libertarians have a little more faith in the individual to make smart decisions, but have a little less faith in government to solve problems. Libertarians have a little too much faith in money to solve it's own problems, in other words democracy of the dollar over democracy of the people. If you take either philosophy to its logical conclusion, neither a true Republican nor a true Libertarian is a big fan of democracy of the people, even if they claim to be.
One of the problems is that the concept, "Republican" does not fit as the name of the current Republican Party in the US. If it did, there wouldn't be a need to introduce the term, "Decentralization"
because the Republican Party claims to be the party that is based on protecting the Republic structure
in our form of government, as apposed to to a centralized national democracy...
As a matter of national goals, the people in the US, without regards to party, needs to rework the
interface between the State Governments and the National Government. I think the concept of decentralization offers a usefull theme for doing this. I think there are some ways that we need
better centralization and some ways that we need more and better decentralization...
We use to be taught basic Civics in school until we let the village idiots take over the School Boards by their stealth and our inattention. Now we have a large segment of uniformed citizens who are prey to Fundamentalists and Ideologues. People who presume to know the will of God more than the rest of us and what's "best" for us better than the founding fathers who demanded an informed citizenry.
We have had people in positions of great power weaned on the crazed writings of fiction writers substitute for dedicated and learned public servants. This has set a precedent of gross incompetence in leadership at the very least and lowered the bar for expectations of government effectiveness. This has been done deliberately by the very people who hate government when they get in power. They have dumbed down America by design. So much so that any Public Discourse about the role of Government must now take place in degenerated Public Square. The ideas of madmen crooks liars and traitors are given equal play with sane thoughtful ideas from legitimate political perspectives. It is a terrible burlesque to entertain any "equivalency" in rank ignorance, obvious lies, distortions and pure madness to the ideas of decent people.
We have a long road ahead and I for one am for calling lies lies and liars liars and let the chips fall where they may.
Just my opinion.
We have had people in positions of great power weaned on the crazed writings of fiction writers substitute for dedicated and learned public servants. This has set a precedent of gross incompetence in leadership at the very least and lowered the bar for expectations of government effectiveness. This has been done deliberately by the very people who hate government when they get in power. They have dumbed down America by design. So much so that any Public Discourse about the role of Government must now take place in degenerated Public Square. The ideas of madmen crooks liars and traitors are given equal play with sane thoughtful ideas from legitimate political perspectives. It is a terrible burlesque to entertain any "equivalency" in rank ignorance, obvious lies, distortions and pure madness to the ideas of decent people.
We have a long road ahead and I for one am for calling lies lies and liars liars and let the chips fall where they may.
Just my opinion.
QUOTE(rla @ Nov 14 2009, 11:27 AM)
One of the problems is that the concept, "Republican" does not fit as the name of the current Republican Party in the US. If it did, there wouldn't be a need to introduce the term, "Decentralization" because the Republican Party claims to be the party that is based on protecting the Republic structure in our form of government, as apposed to to a centralized national democracy...
The concept of a republic can never be as absolute as the concept of a democracy or the opposite concept of a dictatorship. Absolute democracy is one vote per person. Absolute dictatorship is one vote, period. Neither has proven to be sustainable, but at least both concepts are absolute. However, there is no such thing as an absolute republic. A republic can be anything between more than one person and less than a majority vote. So there will always be uncertainty of what should be the goal. Even though neither party sticks to their principles much, the Democrats have a more solid foundation than the Republican party in name.Unlike republicanism, there is a concept of absolute decentralism and it has been proven in nature. Absolute decentralization would be something like total anarchy, but not necessarily total chaos. Ideally it would be eusociality. Realistically, it would mean smaller communities having more power. With modern communication technology, communities would also be more globalized regardless of size. It's unlikely that complete eusociality could ever be achieved with humans, but at least there is an absolute goal and direction with decentralism. I believe decentralism was the goal of the first opposition political party in the United States, but they called it "anti-federalism". Decentralism is much more feasible in 2009 than it was in 1789.
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Nov 14 2009, 01:35 PM)
QUOTE(rla @ Nov 14 2009, 11:27 AM)
One of the problems is that the concept, "Republican" does not fit as the name of the current Republican Party in the US. If it did, there wouldn't be a need to introduce the term, "Decentralization" because the Republican Party claims to be the party that is based on protecting the Republic structure in our form of government, as apposed to to a centralized national democracy...
The concept of a republic can never be as absolute as the concept of a democracy or the opposite concept of a dictatorship. Absolute democracy is one vote per person. Absolute dictatorship is one vote, period. Neither has proven to be sustainable, but at least both concepts are absolute. However, there is no such thing as an absolute republic. A republic can be anything between more than one person and less than a majority vote. So there will always be uncertainty of what should be the goal. Even though neither party sticks to their principles much, the Democrats have a more solid foundation than the Republican party in name.Unlike republicanism, there is a concept of absolute decentralism and it has been proven in nature. Absolute decentralization would be something like total anarchy, but not necessarily total chaos. Ideally it would be eusociality. Realistically, it would mean smaller communities having more power. With modern communication technology, communities would also be more globalized regardless of size. It's unlikely that complete eusociality could ever be achieved with humans, but at least there is an absolute goal and direction with decentralism. I believe decentralism was the goal of the first opposition political party in the United States, but they called it "anti-federalism". Decentralism is much more feasible in 2009 than it was in 1789.
We need a system for ranking the 50 states in terms of the most effective and efficient governments
and draw attention to the elements that make a difference...
QUOTE(rla @ Nov 14 2009, 04:00 PM)
We need a system for ranking the 50 states in terms of the most effective and efficient governments and draw attention to the elements that make a difference...
That's difficult to do without the Federal government taking the credit for some of the states individual successes. The same thing happens globally when we compare the superiority of things like health care in other nations to the United States. Some people attribute much of it to protection from our military. I've heard the claim that other countries can afford health care because they don't have to pay the U.S. military that protects them. The question isn't whether or not they should pay for a big expensive military, but instead should we?
I know Libertarians don't think we need to be the worlds police and could reduce the size of our military. This is where decentralization vs privatization is most important. Libertarians think that we can privatize everything. But look what happens when we hire Blackwater under the claim that we are "reducing the size of government."
The key is to define and agree upon the full scope of the problem, and have a system to fill the void ready to go before we dismantle the Federal government. Somethings that work on a state level, don't work globally. But they don't necessarily need to work globally either, because some of the states problems are not global problems. I alluded to this in my thread on rural vs urban issues.
Such a ranking system would have to be done per issue rather than per overall quality of state government.
QUOTE(rla @ Nov 13 2009, 10:54 AM)
QUOTE(rla @ Nov 11 2009, 10:45 PM)
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Nov 11 2009, 08:32 PM)
I Googled Decentralism and was surprised to find that the meme is already growing strong.
This position could lead to a new political party that could rival the two major parties, the Decentralist Party of America. It could unify Libertarians and Liberal Progressives,
This position could lead to a new political party that could rival the two major parties, the Decentralist Party of America. It could unify Libertarians and Liberal Progressives,
How could we state Decentralist Party in a positive way?
Perhaps, "Community-based Democracy" is a more positive statement of what the concept refers to
in the political domain?
I like the term "community-based democracy."
You actually would find many conservatives who favor decentralized authority. States' rights is not a dead issue.
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Nov 14 2009, 04:34 PM)
Such a ranking system would have to be done per issue rather than per overall quality of state government.
The former could be elements of the later, in a multivariate design...
QUOTE(Beamer @ Nov 14 2009, 04:46 PM)
QUOTE(rla @ Nov 13 2009, 10:54 AM)
QUOTE(rla @ Nov 11 2009, 10:45 PM)
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Nov 11 2009, 08:32 PM)
I Googled Decentralism and was surprised to find that the meme is already growing strong.
This position could lead to a new political party that could rival the two major parties, the Decentralist Party of America. It could unify Libertarians and Liberal Progressives,
This position could lead to a new political party that could rival the two major parties, the Decentralist Party of America. It could unify Libertarians and Liberal Progressives,
How could we state Decentralist Party in a positive way?
Perhaps, "Community-based Democracy" is a more positive statement of what the concept refers to
in the political domain?
I like the term "community-based democracy."
You actually would find many conservatives who favor decentralized authority. States' rights is not a dead issue.
Yes, we need to systematically neutralize the negative valence associated with racial segration...
I have been reading a blog lately by a guy named E.D. Kain. I haven't totally synthesized his philosophy yet. I believe he's Catholic. I believe he's a conservative. So is Andrew Sullivan. But Kain developed a term called "Libertoryanism." Now, Tories are not really thought of as enlightened, but I think we're dealing with a new definition of Tory.
Most conservatives are big on individualism. This guy is into communitarianism.
Check this out:
http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/10/...nism/#more-9450
In my opinion, most of the original thinking on the relation between individuals, society and government is happening on the right.
Most conservatives are big on individualism. This guy is into communitarianism.
Check this out:
QUOTE
Libertoryanism
by E.D. Kain
“I have this crazy notion that there is a point where Red Toryism and the kind of libertarian ideas E.D. is promoting could work together.” ~ Chris Dierkes
I suppose I’m either hopelessly conflicted about my own political and social views and values (”beloved but somewhat confused” as Bob Cheeks would have it), or else I’m working slowly toward a sort of synthesis that I don’t think is properly represented in the modern American political spectrum. That is, I envision something that embraces limited government, free markets, and so forth, but without the unhealthy emphasis on individualism, corporatism, and consumerism so infused to our modern conservative and libertarian movements. I’m not saying we should demonize these things, but they should be cast in their proper roles – as byproducts of liberty and prosperity, rather than as the be-all-end-all of our lives and politics. Along with this, I’d like to see a politics that emphasizes limited, efficient government but does not demonize all government and all actions of the state (save military, of course) and works to govern, regulate, and so forth in the least intrusive, most effective way possible. This would almost certainly require a severing of ties between big government and big business – as well as big government and big labor, for that matter.
And of course, culturally, I’d like some sort of progressive traditionalism that at once embraced the need for progress (social, economic, technological, etc.) as well as the irreplacable value of tradition. Cultivating tradition and traditional values while at the same time embracing progress often seems a hopeless task, but I think that under the surface, it’s also the modus operandi of the ages. This give and take is always with us. I’m fairly traditional in many ways – with a strong belief in the nuclear family, in the importance of one parent staying home with the kids, and so forth, yet for those same reasons I support gay marriage, I support womens’ rights, etc. (A stay at home parent can almost as easily be a dad, after all). It’s why I believe in social equality and include the rights of the unborn as part of that social equality. Indeed, I think a pro-life movement that embraced cultural diversity, sexual equality, and homosexual gay rights would be a far more successful movement in the long run, though in the short term….
So Chris mentions this potential fusion of Red Toryism and Libertarianism, and I think that’s the right trajectory for a political movement to reshape America – a more “progressive” conservatism, to be sure, and one that places emphasis on the small, the local, the communal and decentralized, but also on economic freedom and human rights. I see a number of good ideas which could spawn from such a hybrid:
1) Better Safety Nets
Universal health care.
Universal, local education.
Strong unemployment benefits.
Help for young families.
2) Economic Liberty
Free markets.
Low taxes in a progressive framework.
Limited government intervention into markets.
Free® movement of capital and labor.
Freedom from monopoly in both the private and public sphere.
3) Community rather than individualism; or rather individualism properly understood.
Emphasis on local economies and politics, rather than all New York/D.C. all the time.
Emphasis on small businesses.
Local culture and arts, rather than all Hollywood all the time.
New urbanism and walkable communities; “neighborhood-ism.”
Competitive Federalism
4) The Civilizational Tango
Embrace tradition and progress as one force for stability and change.
Support for two-parent families.
Support for racial and sexual equality, gay rights, etc.
Conservation and environmentalism.
Support for religious freedom, and a belief in the importance of religious traditions.
5) Non-interventionism and humility in foreign affairs.
America is exceptional, but nothing justifies such an arrogant foreign policy
Smart realism and strong diplomatic efforts
Non-interventionism when possible, but not isolationism
Other possible ideas for this fusion include Chris’s personal favorite, the “commons” which could manifest in such things as land grants, sovereign wealth funds, pipes and cables, and so forth. Done properly, the commons could be the missing piece in all of this. I think it’s a way to limit both the influence and power of the state as well as the influence and power of the major private players. Then again, I worry that it could become a monopoly all its own, a market-killer, and an extension of state power.
So this is my attempt to start to break out all these ideas into something somewhat more tangible.
I suppose that’s the whole point of this blog, as well, to work through these contradictory ideas and to discover how to plot them out. I think there are plenty of idiosyncratic thinkers out there – Bill Kauffman for instance – who hold many seemingly contradictory ideas, but once you begin to pan out the pieces begin to fall together. This is just a sketch, in any case, to help me rein in a few of the more disparate threads of thought on all of this.
by E.D. Kain
“I have this crazy notion that there is a point where Red Toryism and the kind of libertarian ideas E.D. is promoting could work together.” ~ Chris Dierkes
I suppose I’m either hopelessly conflicted about my own political and social views and values (”beloved but somewhat confused” as Bob Cheeks would have it), or else I’m working slowly toward a sort of synthesis that I don’t think is properly represented in the modern American political spectrum. That is, I envision something that embraces limited government, free markets, and so forth, but without the unhealthy emphasis on individualism, corporatism, and consumerism so infused to our modern conservative and libertarian movements. I’m not saying we should demonize these things, but they should be cast in their proper roles – as byproducts of liberty and prosperity, rather than as the be-all-end-all of our lives and politics. Along with this, I’d like to see a politics that emphasizes limited, efficient government but does not demonize all government and all actions of the state (save military, of course) and works to govern, regulate, and so forth in the least intrusive, most effective way possible. This would almost certainly require a severing of ties between big government and big business – as well as big government and big labor, for that matter.
And of course, culturally, I’d like some sort of progressive traditionalism that at once embraced the need for progress (social, economic, technological, etc.) as well as the irreplacable value of tradition. Cultivating tradition and traditional values while at the same time embracing progress often seems a hopeless task, but I think that under the surface, it’s also the modus operandi of the ages. This give and take is always with us. I’m fairly traditional in many ways – with a strong belief in the nuclear family, in the importance of one parent staying home with the kids, and so forth, yet for those same reasons I support gay marriage, I support womens’ rights, etc. (A stay at home parent can almost as easily be a dad, after all). It’s why I believe in social equality and include the rights of the unborn as part of that social equality. Indeed, I think a pro-life movement that embraced cultural diversity, sexual equality, and homosexual gay rights would be a far more successful movement in the long run, though in the short term….
So Chris mentions this potential fusion of Red Toryism and Libertarianism, and I think that’s the right trajectory for a political movement to reshape America – a more “progressive” conservatism, to be sure, and one that places emphasis on the small, the local, the communal and decentralized, but also on economic freedom and human rights. I see a number of good ideas which could spawn from such a hybrid:
1) Better Safety Nets
Universal health care.
Universal, local education.
Strong unemployment benefits.
Help for young families.
2) Economic Liberty
Free markets.
Low taxes in a progressive framework.
Limited government intervention into markets.
Free® movement of capital and labor.
Freedom from monopoly in both the private and public sphere.
3) Community rather than individualism; or rather individualism properly understood.
Emphasis on local economies and politics, rather than all New York/D.C. all the time.
Emphasis on small businesses.
Local culture and arts, rather than all Hollywood all the time.
New urbanism and walkable communities; “neighborhood-ism.”
Competitive Federalism
4) The Civilizational Tango
Embrace tradition and progress as one force for stability and change.
Support for two-parent families.
Support for racial and sexual equality, gay rights, etc.
Conservation and environmentalism.
Support for religious freedom, and a belief in the importance of religious traditions.
5) Non-interventionism and humility in foreign affairs.
America is exceptional, but nothing justifies such an arrogant foreign policy
Smart realism and strong diplomatic efforts
Non-interventionism when possible, but not isolationism
Other possible ideas for this fusion include Chris’s personal favorite, the “commons” which could manifest in such things as land grants, sovereign wealth funds, pipes and cables, and so forth. Done properly, the commons could be the missing piece in all of this. I think it’s a way to limit both the influence and power of the state as well as the influence and power of the major private players. Then again, I worry that it could become a monopoly all its own, a market-killer, and an extension of state power.
So this is my attempt to start to break out all these ideas into something somewhat more tangible.
I suppose that’s the whole point of this blog, as well, to work through these contradictory ideas and to discover how to plot them out. I think there are plenty of idiosyncratic thinkers out there – Bill Kauffman for instance – who hold many seemingly contradictory ideas, but once you begin to pan out the pieces begin to fall together. This is just a sketch, in any case, to help me rein in a few of the more disparate threads of thought on all of this.
http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/10/...nism/#more-9450
In my opinion, most of the original thinking on the relation between individuals, society and government is happening on the right.
This may not sound significant, but I think a good example of this sort of community-based, small-sized free enterprise is the modern-day farmer's market. Bill, do you go to any farmers' markets in San Diego? I went to one in Little Italy today.
states rights=code word for racism against blacks.
end of discussion.
and these liberatarians want gov't out, except they want to have cameras in your bedroom or ban abortion
end of discussion.
and these liberatarians want gov't out, except they want to have cameras in your bedroom or ban abortion
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Nov 14 2009, 03:47 PM)
states rights=code word for racism against blacks.
end of discussion.
and these liberatarians want gov't out, except they want to have cameras in your bedroom or ban abortion
end of discussion.
and these liberatarians want gov't out, except they want to have cameras in your bedroom or ban abortion
States' rights is a philosophy of government based on the idea of decentralized authority. If you have nothing but knee-jerk reactionary comments to make, it's better if you stay out.
Beamer, your post # 16 is very interesting and I think offers some real food for thought. I take exception to your statement about most original thinking occuring on the right.In fact the perspective you describe demonstrates how our tendency to supperimpose the Left-Right distinction on all socio-political considerations contributes to keeping the problem a problem...For instance, the, "Right" concept of two parent families and the, "Left's" problem of gay marriage has been solved by liberal/progressive thinkers with the concept of non-traditional families being recognized as performing
a needed social/community function for decades. A person is a person is a person and a family is a family is a family and a community is a community is a community...
I too am a strong advocate of local farmer's markets and the concept of Foodsheds...
I don't completly buy into the whole philosophy presented by some under the name, "Communitarism,"
as per "The Spirit of Community" by Amitai Etzioni. I tend to shy away from, "isms."
a needed social/community function for decades. A person is a person is a person and a family is a family is a family and a community is a community is a community...
I too am a strong advocate of local farmer's markets and the concept of Foodsheds...
I don't completly buy into the whole philosophy presented by some under the name, "Communitarism,"
as per "The Spirit of Community" by Amitai Etzioni. I tend to shy away from, "isms."
QUOTE(Beamer @ Nov 14 2009, 06:01 PM)
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Nov 14 2009, 03:47 PM)
states rights=code word for racism against blacks.
end of discussion.
and these liberatarians want gov't out, except they want to have cameras in your bedroom or ban abortion
end of discussion.
and these liberatarians want gov't out, except they want to have cameras in your bedroom or ban abortion
States' rights is a philosophy of government based on the idea of decentralized authority. If you have nothing but knee-jerk reactionary comments to make, it's better if you stay out.
we need more government not less
the republican Reagan less government has NEVER worked as judged by the only times in history anything good happened in this country was
FDR and all his programs
LBJ and all his programs
Nixon and his programs(Nixon being more liberal and less republican than most others,esp.after him)
Woodrow Wilson
and going back further a few others but not many
we need more not less.
and states rights is code words for racism. Ask any black person in america "what does states rights mean to you" and you will get the same answer
and it won't be pleasant.
States cannot control federal issues like abortion, because it leads to disenfranchising of the poor
same with every other issue
it should all be federal
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Nov 14 2009, 04:09 PM)
QUOTE(Beamer @ Nov 14 2009, 06:01 PM)
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Nov 14 2009, 03:47 PM)
states rights=code word for racism against blacks.
end of discussion.
and these liberatarians want gov't out, except they want to have cameras in your bedroom or ban abortion
end of discussion.
and these liberatarians want gov't out, except they want to have cameras in your bedroom or ban abortion
States' rights is a philosophy of government based on the idea of decentralized authority. If you have nothing but knee-jerk reactionary comments to make, it's better if you stay out.
we need more government not less
the republican Reagan less government has NEVER worked as judged by the only times in history anything good happened in this country was
FDR and all his programs
LBJ and all his programs
Nixon and his programs(Nixon being more liberal and less republican than most others,esp.after him)
Woodrow Wilson
and going back further a few others but not many
we need more not less.
and states rights is code words for racism. Ask any black person in america "what does states rights mean to you" and you will get the same answer
and it won't be pleasant.
States cannot control federal issues like abortion, because it leads to disenfranchising of the poor
same with every other issue
it should all be federal
I disagree.
QUOTE(rla @ Nov 14 2009, 05:00 PM)
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Nov 14 2009, 04:34 PM)
Such a ranking system would have to be done per issue rather than per overall quality of state government.
The former could be elements of the later, in a multivariate design...
QUOTE(Beamer @ Nov 14 2009, 05:25 PM)
This may not sound significant, but I think a good example of this sort of community-based, small-sized free enterprise is the modern-day farmer's market. Bill, do you go to any farmers' markets in San Diego? I went to one in Little Italy today.
I don't get out much. But it sounds interesting. I'll look it up. We should probably be selling our surplus of citrus at one.
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Nov 14 2009, 06:09 PM)
we need more government not less
Decentralization is about neither.QUOTE(rla @ Nov 14 2009, 04:01 PM)
Beamer, your post # 16 is very interesting and I think offers some real food for thought. I take exception to your statement about most original thinking occuring on the right.In fact the perspective you describe demonstrates how our tendency to supperimpose the Left-Right distinction on all socio-political considerations contributes to keeping the problem a problem...For instance, the, "Right" concept of two parent families and the, "Left's" problem of gay marriage has been solved by liberal/progressive thinkers with the concept of non-traditional families being recognized as performing
a needed social/community function for decades. A person is a person is a person and a family is a family is a family and a community is a community is a community...
I too am a strong advocate of local farmer's markets and the concept of Foodsheds...
I don't completly buy into the whole philosophy presented by some under the name, "Communitarism,"
as per "The Spirit of Community" by Amitai Etzioni. I tend to shy away from, "isms."
a needed social/community function for decades. A person is a person is a person and a family is a family is a family and a community is a community is a community...
I too am a strong advocate of local farmer's markets and the concept of Foodsheds...
I don't completly buy into the whole philosophy presented by some under the name, "Communitarism,"
as per "The Spirit of Community" by Amitai Etzioni. I tend to shy away from, "isms."
Maybe my inclination is anti-big government and anti-big business. I favor more individual choice and individual accountability, and local businesses versus large chain stores. Lately my focus has been on health care. However, I have long thought that Washington is just a sinkhole for taxpayer money, and what comes out of there just isn't worth what we're paying for it.
I would call myself a conservative, but I do favor public investment in strategic industries (like green technology), serious regulation of business, and a strong "commons," as referened in that article I posted. I think if we're going to subsidize the poor, it should be done in a more direct fashion with very little bureaucracy. For instance, I think the WPA and the CCC were in many ways a good thing, if they're thought of as temporary solutions to economic crisis.
I think the current environment of corporatism, consumerism and big government has lead to less dignity for people (over-population is also a major contributor to this), and a descent into immorality, shallowness and loss of meaning.
I'm not familiar with Amitai Etzioni.
QUOTE(Beamer @ Nov 14 2009, 06:44 PM)
QUOTE(rla @ Nov 14 2009, 04:01 PM)
Beamer, your post # 16 is very interesting and I think offers some real food for thought. I take exception to your statement about most original thinking occuring on the right.In fact the perspective you describe demonstrates how our tendency to supperimpose the Left-Right distinction on all socio-political considerations contributes to keeping the problem a problem...For instance, the, "Right" concept of two parent families and the, "Left's" problem of gay marriage has been solved by liberal/progressive thinkers with the concept of non-traditional families being recognized as performing
a needed social/community function for decades. A person is a person is a person and a family is a family is a family and a community is a community is a community...
I too am a strong advocate of local farmer's markets and the concept of Foodsheds...
I don't completly buy into the whole philosophy presented by some under the name, "Communitarism,"
as per "The Spirit of Community" by Amitai Etzioni. I tend to shy away from, "isms."
a needed social/community function for decades. A person is a person is a person and a family is a family is a family and a community is a community is a community...
I too am a strong advocate of local farmer's markets and the concept of Foodsheds...
I don't completly buy into the whole philosophy presented by some under the name, "Communitarism,"
as per "The Spirit of Community" by Amitai Etzioni. I tend to shy away from, "isms."
Maybe my inclination is anti-big government and anti-big business. I favor more individual choice and individual accountability, and local businesses versus large chain stores. Lately my focus has been on health care. However, I have long thought that Washington is just a sinkhole for taxpayer money, and what comes out of there just isn't worth what we're paying for it.
I would call myself a conservative, but I do favor public investment in strategic industries (like green technology), serious regulation of business, and a strong "commons," as referened in that article I posted. I think if we're going to subsidize the poor, it should be done in a more direct fashion with very little bureaucracy. For instance, I think the WPA and the CCC were in many ways a good thing, if they're thought of as temporary solutions to economic crisis.
I think the current environment of corporatism, consumerism and big government has lead to less dignity for people (over-population is also a major contributor to this), and a descent into immorality, shallowness and loss of meaning.
I'm not familiar with Amitai Etzioni.
Amitai Etzioni is the Grandaddy of Communitarism and a major Mentor to E.D. Kain. I've been trying to find out what the relation is between E.D. Kain and Gov. Tim Kain but I haven't tied it down yet. I
understand that Gov. Kain also has some association with the Communitarism movement. I'm interested in finding out more about Tim Kain since he is the new head of the Democratic Party.
This is the right thread...
I insist we as a country need an informed discussion (in the Public Square) about the role of government. I think that is where we sort this all out. I am not an advocate of "big government" or "small government". I want good government however big or small. Government is supposed to be US. No system devised by humans is perfect or ever will be. But to believe that there is an alternative to government is fantasy or more likely an exercise in deliberate deception. There is government by the people of the people and for the people or there is anarchy or there is an Oligarchy. The Libertarians are crazy though not directly dangerous. However, indirectly their "Randian" ideas have been used in a distorted form to justify the Wild Wild West mentality put forth by a now contrite Greenspan in the financial sector. It led to total disaster. Regulation is necessary because one of the most insidious ideas from Libertarian-ville is the myth of a "Free-Market". There never was a free market (except perhaps small farmer's markets) in the large sense and there never will be as long as human greed exists.
What is much more dangerous to us all is rule by the Rich and by the fictitious persons (Corporations) promoted by the crooks in suits coming out of the Federalist Society. They have stacked the courts with corporate shills and if they have their way we will all be living back in the 18th Century in England. IE, Bob Crachett's World. Ebineezer would represent the tiny Middle Class Merchants and we would be "Bob". A world ruled by the super-rich containing a small Merchant Class and a vast population of Serfs and working poor. That is what you get when you do not have effective government. That is what you get when there are no regulations no unions and no reasonable progressive tax and trade policies to grow and sustain a large Middle Class.
The Libertarian ideas will not give that to us and the Super Rich and the CEOs damn sure won't. So while we're debating the role and size of government maybe it would be wise to decide if what I just said is true or not and if it is - just what kind of world we want to live in.
Just my opinion.
I insist we as a country need an informed discussion (in the Public Square) about the role of government. I think that is where we sort this all out. I am not an advocate of "big government" or "small government". I want good government however big or small. Government is supposed to be US. No system devised by humans is perfect or ever will be. But to believe that there is an alternative to government is fantasy or more likely an exercise in deliberate deception. There is government by the people of the people and for the people or there is anarchy or there is an Oligarchy. The Libertarians are crazy though not directly dangerous. However, indirectly their "Randian" ideas have been used in a distorted form to justify the Wild Wild West mentality put forth by a now contrite Greenspan in the financial sector. It led to total disaster. Regulation is necessary because one of the most insidious ideas from Libertarian-ville is the myth of a "Free-Market". There never was a free market (except perhaps small farmer's markets) in the large sense and there never will be as long as human greed exists.
What is much more dangerous to us all is rule by the Rich and by the fictitious persons (Corporations) promoted by the crooks in suits coming out of the Federalist Society. They have stacked the courts with corporate shills and if they have their way we will all be living back in the 18th Century in England. IE, Bob Crachett's World. Ebineezer would represent the tiny Middle Class Merchants and we would be "Bob". A world ruled by the super-rich containing a small Merchant Class and a vast population of Serfs and working poor. That is what you get when you do not have effective government. That is what you get when there are no regulations no unions and no reasonable progressive tax and trade policies to grow and sustain a large Middle Class.
The Libertarian ideas will not give that to us and the Super Rich and the CEOs damn sure won't. So while we're debating the role and size of government maybe it would be wise to decide if what I just said is true or not and if it is - just what kind of world we want to live in.
Just my opinion.
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Nov 14 2009, 05:38 PM)
QUOTE(rla @ Nov 14 2009, 05:00 PM)
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Nov 14 2009, 04:34 PM)
Such a ranking system would have to be done per issue rather than per overall quality of state government.
The former could be elements of the later, in a multivariate design...
Actually the states are already ranked on dozens of different dimensions...
QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Nov 15 2009, 02:39 PM)
This is the right thread...
I insist we as a country need an informed discussion (in the Public Square) about the role of government. I think that is where we sort this all out. I am not an advocate of "big government" or "small government". I want good government however big or small. Government is supposed to be US. No system devised by humans is perfect or ever will be. But to believe that there is an alternative to government is fantasy or more likely an exercise in deliberate deception. There is government by the people of the people and for the people or there is anarchy or there is an Oligarchy. The Libertarians are crazy though not directly dangerous. However, indirectly their "Randian" ideas have been used in a distorted form to justify the Wild Wild West mentality put forth by a now contrite Greenspan in the financial sector. It led to total disaster. Regulation is necessary because one of the most insidious ideas from Libertarian-ville is the myth of a "Free-Market". There never was a free market (except perhaps small farmer's markets) in the large sense and there never will be as long as human greed exists.
What is much more dangerous to us all is rule by the Rich and by the fictitious persons (Corporations) promoted by the crooks in suits coming out of the Federalist Society. They have stacked the courts with corporate shills and if they have their way we will all be living back in the 18th Century in England. IE, Bob Crachett's World. Ebineezer would represent the tiny Middle Class Merchants and we would be "Bob". A world ruled by the super-rich containing a small Merchant Class and a vast population of Serfs and working poor. That is what you get when you do not have effective government. That is what you get when there are no regulations no unions and no reasonable progressive tax and trade policies to grow and sustain a large Middle Class.
The Libertarian ideas will not give that to us and the Super Rich and the CEOs damn sure won't. So while we're debating the role and size of government maybe it would be wise to decide if what I just said is true or not and if it is - just what kind of world we want to live in.
Just my opinion.
I insist we as a country need an informed discussion (in the Public Square) about the role of government. I think that is where we sort this all out. I am not an advocate of "big government" or "small government". I want good government however big or small. Government is supposed to be US. No system devised by humans is perfect or ever will be. But to believe that there is an alternative to government is fantasy or more likely an exercise in deliberate deception. There is government by the people of the people and for the people or there is anarchy or there is an Oligarchy. The Libertarians are crazy though not directly dangerous. However, indirectly their "Randian" ideas have been used in a distorted form to justify the Wild Wild West mentality put forth by a now contrite Greenspan in the financial sector. It led to total disaster. Regulation is necessary because one of the most insidious ideas from Libertarian-ville is the myth of a "Free-Market". There never was a free market (except perhaps small farmer's markets) in the large sense and there never will be as long as human greed exists.
What is much more dangerous to us all is rule by the Rich and by the fictitious persons (Corporations) promoted by the crooks in suits coming out of the Federalist Society. They have stacked the courts with corporate shills and if they have their way we will all be living back in the 18th Century in England. IE, Bob Crachett's World. Ebineezer would represent the tiny Middle Class Merchants and we would be "Bob". A world ruled by the super-rich containing a small Merchant Class and a vast population of Serfs and working poor. That is what you get when you do not have effective government. That is what you get when there are no regulations no unions and no reasonable progressive tax and trade policies to grow and sustain a large Middle Class.
The Libertarian ideas will not give that to us and the Super Rich and the CEOs damn sure won't. So while we're debating the role and size of government maybe it would be wise to decide if what I just said is true or not and if it is - just what kind of world we want to live in.
Just my opinion.
I agree with what you said, and I particularly agree with the part about the "small government" fanatics enabling the Wild West neoliberal Greenspan types.
QUOTE(Beamer @ Nov 18 2009, 12:24 AM)
QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Nov 15 2009, 02:39 PM)
This is the right thread...
I insist we as a country need an informed discussion (in the Public Square) about the role of government. I think that is where we sort this all out. I am not an advocate of "big government" or "small government". I want good government however big or small. Government is supposed to be US. No system devised by humans is perfect or ever will be. But to believe that there is an alternative to government is fantasy or more likely an exercise in deliberate deception. There is government by the people of the people and for the people or there is anarchy or there is an Oligarchy. The Libertarians are crazy though not directly dangerous. However, indirectly their "Randian" ideas have been used in a distorted form to justify the Wild Wild West mentality put forth by a now contrite Greenspan in the financial sector. It led to total disaster. Regulation is necessary because one of the most insidious ideas from Libertarian-ville is the myth of a "Free-Market". There never was a free market (except perhaps small farmer's markets) in the large sense and there never will be as long as human greed exists.
What is much more dangerous to us all is rule by the Rich and by the fictitious persons (Corporations) promoted by the crooks in suits coming out of the Federalist Society. They have stacked the courts with corporate shills and if they have their way we will all be living back in the 18th Century in England. IE, Bob Crachett's World. Ebineezer would represent the tiny Middle Class Merchants and we would be "Bob". A world ruled by the super-rich containing a small Merchant Class and a vast population of Serfs and working poor. That is what you get when you do not have effective government. That is what you get when there are no regulations no unions and no reasonable progressive tax and trade policies to grow and sustain a large Middle Class.
The Libertarian ideas will not give that to us and the Super Rich and the CEOs damn sure won't. So while we're debating the role and size of government maybe it would be wise to decide if what I just said is true or not and if it is - just what kind of world we want to live in.
Just my opinion.
I insist we as a country need an informed discussion (in the Public Square) about the role of government. I think that is where we sort this all out. I am not an advocate of "big government" or "small government". I want good government however big or small. Government is supposed to be US. No system devised by humans is perfect or ever will be. But to believe that there is an alternative to government is fantasy or more likely an exercise in deliberate deception. There is government by the people of the people and for the people or there is anarchy or there is an Oligarchy. The Libertarians are crazy though not directly dangerous. However, indirectly their "Randian" ideas have been used in a distorted form to justify the Wild Wild West mentality put forth by a now contrite Greenspan in the financial sector. It led to total disaster. Regulation is necessary because one of the most insidious ideas from Libertarian-ville is the myth of a "Free-Market". There never was a free market (except perhaps small farmer's markets) in the large sense and there never will be as long as human greed exists.
What is much more dangerous to us all is rule by the Rich and by the fictitious persons (Corporations) promoted by the crooks in suits coming out of the Federalist Society. They have stacked the courts with corporate shills and if they have their way we will all be living back in the 18th Century in England. IE, Bob Crachett's World. Ebineezer would represent the tiny Middle Class Merchants and we would be "Bob". A world ruled by the super-rich containing a small Merchant Class and a vast population of Serfs and working poor. That is what you get when you do not have effective government. That is what you get when there are no regulations no unions and no reasonable progressive tax and trade policies to grow and sustain a large Middle Class.
The Libertarian ideas will not give that to us and the Super Rich and the CEOs damn sure won't. So while we're debating the role and size of government maybe it would be wise to decide if what I just said is true or not and if it is - just what kind of world we want to live in.
Just my opinion.
I agree with what you said, and I particularly agree with the part about the "small government" fanatics enabling the Wild West neoliberal Greenspan types.
if you are going to agree with TROU on the parts above, though, you then need to agree with him on all the other things he says
Which of course, you agree with nothing on that
You can't just pick and chose beamer
it's like the hypcracy of the libertarian czars like Ron Paul. He IS THE PROBLEM, being that he is a republivcan and has been for 35 years in office.
Yet he wants gov't out of everything
except he (and you beamer) wants gov't in my bedroom
QUOTE(rla @ Nov 17 2009, 10:51 PM)
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Nov 14 2009, 05:38 PM)
QUOTE(rla @ Nov 14 2009, 05:00 PM)
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Nov 14 2009, 04:34 PM)
Such a ranking system would have to be done per issue rather than per overall quality of state government.
The former could be elements of the later, in a multivariate design...
Actually the states are already ranked on dozens of different dimensions...
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Nov 18 2009, 11:34 AM)
QUOTE(rla @ Nov 17 2009, 10:51 PM)
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Nov 14 2009, 05:38 PM)
QUOTE(rla @ Nov 14 2009, 05:00 PM)
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Nov 14 2009, 04:34 PM)
Such a ranking system would have to be done per issue rather than per overall quality of state government.
The former could be elements of the later, in a multivariate design...
Actually the states are already ranked on dozens of different dimensions...
I don't know...there is so much data available, I would be surprized if there is not...
QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Nov 15 2009, 03:39 PM)
This is the right thread...
I insist we as a country need an informed discussion (in the Public Square) about the role of government.
I insist we as a country need an informed discussion (in the Public Square) about the role of government.
Doesn't the Constitution pretty much spell that out?
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=17387
the federal government needs to take over ALL parts where disenfranching would occur from a person in one state
compared to another state
ALL are equal
meaning FEDERAL controls all FEDERAL constituted issues like abortion
as some states would say no, we need FEDERAL TO SAY ALL ARE LEGAL EVERYWHERE
same with other issues where disenfranching occurs
be careful tex what you are agreeing with when it comes to GOPGUY
He will do a gotcha on you as is the norm
compared to another state
ALL are equal
meaning FEDERAL controls all FEDERAL constituted issues like abortion
as some states would say no, we need FEDERAL TO SAY ALL ARE LEGAL EVERYWHERE
same with other issues where disenfranching occurs
be careful tex what you are agreeing with when it comes to GOPGUY
He will do a gotcha on you as is the norm
QUOTE
be careful tex what you are agreeing with when it comes to GOPGUY
He will do a gotcha on you as is the norm
He will do a gotcha on you as is the norm
Well graham, I don't know everyone well enough to make any rash opinions about them. Like I mentioned to you the other day, I really would like to see people strive for common ground and I think Nite Owl was spot on about how the government tries to keep up divided. And we fall for it!!
Even though I am democratic, I want to focus on people overall and what benefits us all as human beings - not what divides us.
QUOTE(txbluejay @ Nov 18 2009, 03:02 PM)
QUOTE
be careful tex what you are agreeing with when it comes to GOPGUY
He will do a gotcha on you as is the norm
He will do a gotcha on you as is the norm
Well graham, I don't know everyone well enough to make any rash opinions about them. Like I mentioned to you the other day, I really would like to see people strive for common ground and I think Nite Owl was spot on about how the government tries to keep up divided. And we fall for it!!
Even though I am democratic, I want to focus on people overall and what benefits us all as human beings - not what divides us.
niteowl is a democrat and an Obama fan
not looking to gotcha
QUOTE(txbluejay @ Nov 18 2009, 03:02 PM)
QUOTE
be careful tex what you are agreeing with when it comes to GOPGUY
He will do a gotcha on you as is the norm
He will do a gotcha on you as is the norm
Well graham, I don't know everyone well enough to make any rash opinions about them. Like I mentioned to you the other day, I really would like to see people strive for common ground and I think Nite Owl was spot on about how the government tries to keep up divided. And we fall for it!!
Even though I am democratic, I want to focus on people overall and what benefits us all as human beings - not what divides us.
Well, I guess that's the chance I take, huh?.
As long as debate is civil and open-minded, I don't mind.
QUOTE(Frenchy @ Nov 18 2009, 12:40 PM)
QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Nov 15 2009, 03:39 PM)
This is the right thread...
I insist we as a country need an informed discussion (in the Public Square) about the role of government.
I insist we as a country need an informed discussion (in the Public Square) about the role of government.
Doesn't the Constitution pretty much spell that out?
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=17387
I admit I skimmed the page. And I haven't studied the issue well. But here is what I think anyway.
Some things must be under Federal jurisdiction because "some" States have different values that may not correct in this case Usury. Just like with Health Insurance and many other things the States that "allow" abuse of the citizen become the stronghold of those group or corporate practices that allow what shouldn't be allowed. It is in the eye of the beholder as to what should be left to State decisions and I admit it is debatable. But ever since the States proved they couldn't be trusted with certain people's rights (slavery) they must not be allowed to be the final arbiter of what is good for their residents. Those residents are citizens of the United States first and State residents second.
Just my opinion.
QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Nov 19 2009, 09:15 AM)
QUOTE(Frenchy @ Nov 18 2009, 12:40 PM)
QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Nov 15 2009, 03:39 PM)
This is the right thread...
I insist we as a country need an informed discussion (in the Public Square) about the role of government.
I insist we as a country need an informed discussion (in the Public Square) about the role of government.
Doesn't the Constitution pretty much spell that out?
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=17387
I admit I skimmed the page. And I haven't studied the issue well. But here is what I think anyway.
Some things must be under Federal jurisdiction because "some" States have different values that may not correct in this case Usury. Just like with Health Insurance and many other things the States that "allow" abuse of the citizen become the stronghold of those group or corporate practices that allow what shouldn't be allowed. It is in the eye of the beholder as to what should be left to State decisions and I admit it is debatable. But ever since the States proved they couldn't be trusted with certain people's rights (slavery) they must not be allowed to be the final arbiter of what is good for their residents. Those residents are citizens of the United States first and State residents second.
Just my opinion.
Whether USAians are citizens of their state (of choice) first or citizens of the Nation (USA) first is
something that all don't agree about...
I would like to hear more discussion on this point...
QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Nov 19 2009, 10:15 AM)
Some things must be under Federal jurisdiction because "some" States have different values that may not correct in this case Usury. Just like with Health Insurance and many other things the States that "allow" abuse of the citizen become the stronghold of those group or corporate practices that allow what shouldn't be allowed. It is in the eye of the beholder as to what should be left to State decisions and I admit it is debatable. But ever since the States proved they couldn't be trusted with certain people's rights (slavery) they must not be allowed to be the final arbiter of what is good for their residents. Those residents are citizens of the United States first and State residents second.
I agree.Real federal agencies should be the final arbiter. The problem is that the most influential force over the federal government is not a real federal agency, it's a private corporation. We need a real agency that handles our financial issues that is elected by the people an for the people.
I'm not suggesting a bigger federal government, but a more decentralized federal government. I've mentioned a few times on this forum that are federal government is missing 2 branches in it's checks and balances formula, Inquiry and Income. We have two pseudo branches in the shadow government we call the private sector. Leaving these two branches to be handled by the private sector isn't working. At least the big influence of the inquiry branch (the media conglomerates) don't pretend to be federal like the federal reserve. The only part of what should be the inquiry branch that is official (the FCC) is instead part of the executive. The only part of what should be the income branch that is official (the IRS) is also part of the executive. Both the FCC and IRS are doing lousy jobs. They should both be part of separate branches that provide a 5 entity checks and balance. 3 is too few and too centralized. 2 of those branches are at the mercy of the income branch to get elected. The other branch (the judiciary) is underutilized.
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Nov 19 2009, 01:23 PM)
QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Nov 19 2009, 10:15 AM)
Some things must be under Federal jurisdiction because "some" States have different values that may not correct in this case Usury. Just like with Health Insurance and many other things the States that "allow" abuse of the citizen become the stronghold of those group or corporate practices that allow what shouldn't be allowed. It is in the eye of the beholder as to what should be left to State decisions and I admit it is debatable. But ever since the States proved they couldn't be trusted with certain people's rights (slavery) they must not be allowed to be the final arbiter of what is good for their residents. Those residents are citizens of the United States first and State residents second.
I agree.Real federal agencies should be the final arbiter. The problem is that the most influential force over the federal government is not a real federal agency, it's a private corporation. We need a real agency that handles our financial issues that is elected by the people an for the people.
I'm not suggesting a bigger federal government, but a more decentralized federal government. I've mentioned a few times on this forum that are federal government is missing 2 branches in it's checks and balances formula, Inquiry and Income. We have two pseudo branches in the shadow government we call the private sector. Leaving these two branches to be handled by the private sector isn't working. At least the big influence of the inquiry branch (the media conglomerates) don't pretend to be federal like the federal reserve. The only part of what should be the inquiry branch that is official (the FCC) is instead part of the executive. The only part of what should be the income branch that is official (the IRS) is also part of the executive. Both the FCC and IRS are doing lousy jobs. They should both be part of separate branches that provide a 5 entity checks and balance. 3 is too few and too centralized. 2 of those branches are at the mercy of the income branch to get elected. The other branch (the judiciary) is underutilized.
I like the concept of five branches of government...
Human beings, on the average, can handle five streams of related information. In developing a conceptual model of personing in the human social system, I found that the available pertinent information fell into five categories: perceiving, conceptualizing, feeling, intending and acting. Persons
and nations are organic systems and thus have a similar structure and process...
I haven't decided whether the five most functional parts of a nation should be named: Legislative, Executive, Judicial, Income and Enquiry or not...
One obvious pattern is that our government has what I call the junk drawer/junk box mentality. As I struggle to keep my house organized, I've learned that not having predesignated spaces for new items accumulated leads to junk drawers and junk boxes, including tool boxes. In the case of the executive branch, it's the junk Presidents cabinet. As times change and new responsibilities arise, they fall in the executives lap and are sloppily organized in haste. 4 to 8 years isn't nearly enough time to think through and build the best agencies. The next president isn't likely to have the same vision that the previous president had, and is going to mess up what little plans were made even more. But don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating longer term limits. Even if there is enough time to organize, some of these agencies don't even belong in the executive for conflicts of interest.
Our government was incomplete from go. It was born at a time when the global society was less technologically advanced and less integrated. Therefore media and money didn't have as strong of an influence and was overlooked in the checks and balances equation. The federal government wasn't even that strong at the time and didn't need to be. The model of the fed was so simple, it was duplicated on the state level in most states. They saw legislative and judiciary as having equal power to the executive. In their less complicated world, there wasn't much to it: make laws, judge laws, execute laws. Secrecy and bribery wasn't as easy, so inquiry and income wasn't as much of a factor. Most people were self-sustaining farmers anyway. All you needed was land and at the time there appeared to be more than enough of it to go around. All you had to do was claim it.
Enter technology into the equation. Although the printing press had already been invented, it wasn't nearly accessible and influential as it exponentially became in the following decades. Electrical telegraph and steam locomotives hadn't even been invented yet. Once the technologies changed the rules of communications and economics, the government was due for an upgrade. But instead conservatism allowed the private sector to develop faster than the government. So we now have hackers in the shadow government hacking into the code of our government and reprogramming it to serve their special interest. We couldn't upgrade fast enough. I'm sure there were many attempts from presidents to fight back against the hackers. There were some strong resistances such as the organization of a Secret Service, Sherman and Clayton Acts, and the New Deal. The Federal Reserve act was too devastating despite all the resistance. It may have been the fatal blow that has cause us to slowly bleed to death over the one century period to follow.
So here we are 233 years after the start and 100 years after the turning point. If there is any hope, it really has to do with decentralizing government and reinventing a smarter way of using money. Giving more governing power back to the states is one way to decentralize, but we should also consider splitting up the federal government in to more smaller agencies with more thoroughly and modernly defined roles. I like the concept of 5 branches too, but it may be too late for our government (or any government for that matter) to organize it self that way. It would probably get ruled unconstitutional. But at least in hindsight we know were we went wrong. As for money, decentralizing money governing institutions would help too. But there is so much power concentrated into too few hands from money now, I don't know if it's possible to reverse it. American unregulated capitalism has become a breeding ground for the virus of global fascism quick to destabilize, overthrow, and insert puppet dictators in any government that threatens the establishment of power from money.
Our government was incomplete from go. It was born at a time when the global society was less technologically advanced and less integrated. Therefore media and money didn't have as strong of an influence and was overlooked in the checks and balances equation. The federal government wasn't even that strong at the time and didn't need to be. The model of the fed was so simple, it was duplicated on the state level in most states. They saw legislative and judiciary as having equal power to the executive. In their less complicated world, there wasn't much to it: make laws, judge laws, execute laws. Secrecy and bribery wasn't as easy, so inquiry and income wasn't as much of a factor. Most people were self-sustaining farmers anyway. All you needed was land and at the time there appeared to be more than enough of it to go around. All you had to do was claim it.
Enter technology into the equation. Although the printing press had already been invented, it wasn't nearly accessible and influential as it exponentially became in the following decades. Electrical telegraph and steam locomotives hadn't even been invented yet. Once the technologies changed the rules of communications and economics, the government was due for an upgrade. But instead conservatism allowed the private sector to develop faster than the government. So we now have hackers in the shadow government hacking into the code of our government and reprogramming it to serve their special interest. We couldn't upgrade fast enough. I'm sure there were many attempts from presidents to fight back against the hackers. There were some strong resistances such as the organization of a Secret Service, Sherman and Clayton Acts, and the New Deal. The Federal Reserve act was too devastating despite all the resistance. It may have been the fatal blow that has cause us to slowly bleed to death over the one century period to follow.
So here we are 233 years after the start and 100 years after the turning point. If there is any hope, it really has to do with decentralizing government and reinventing a smarter way of using money. Giving more governing power back to the states is one way to decentralize, but we should also consider splitting up the federal government in to more smaller agencies with more thoroughly and modernly defined roles. I like the concept of 5 branches too, but it may be too late for our government (or any government for that matter) to organize it self that way. It would probably get ruled unconstitutional. But at least in hindsight we know were we went wrong. As for money, decentralizing money governing institutions would help too. But there is so much power concentrated into too few hands from money now, I don't know if it's possible to reverse it. American unregulated capitalism has become a breeding ground for the virus of global fascism quick to destabilize, overthrow, and insert puppet dictators in any government that threatens the establishment of power from money.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.