0:06 - Is government the antithesis of liberty?

0:47 - One of the things that enhances freedoms are roads. Infrastructure enhances freedom. A social safety net enhances freedom.

2:02 - What should we do with the losers that are picked by the free market?

3:38 - Do we live in a society or don't we? Are we a collective? Everybody's success is predicated on the hard work of all of us; nobody gets there on their own. Why should it be that the people who lose are hung out to dry? For a group that doesn't believe in evolution, it's awfully Darwinian.

5:41 - In a representative democracy, we are the government. We have work to do, and we have a business to run, and we have children to raise.. We elect you as our representatives to look after our interests within a democratic system.

7:41 - Is government inherently evil?

9:03 - Sometimes to protect the greater liberty you have to do things like form an army, or gather a group together to build a wall or levy.

9:47 - As soon as you've built an army, you've now said government isn't always inherently evil because we need it to help us sometimes, so now.. it's that old joke: Would you sleep with me for a million dollars? How about a dollar? Who do you think I am? We already decided who you are, now we're just negotiating.

10:54 - You say: government which governs least governments best. But that were the Articles of Confederation. We tried that for 8 years, it didn't work, and went to the Constitution.

11:16 - You give money to the IRS because you think they're gonna hire a bunch of people, that if your house catches on fire, will come there with water.

11:56 - Why is it that libertarians trust a corporation, in certain matters, more than they trust representatives that are accountable to voters? The idea that I would give up my liberty to an insurance company, as opposed to my representative, seems insane.

13:38 - Why is it that with competition, we have such difficulty with our health care system? ...and there are choices within the educational system.

15:00 - Would you go back to 1890?

16:20 - If we didn't have government, we'd all be in hovercrafts, and nobody would have cancer, and broccoli would be ice-cream?

16:30 - Unregulated markets have been tried. The 80's and the 90's were the robber baron age. These regulations didn't come out of an interest in restricting liberty. What they did is came out of an interest in helping those that had been victimized by a system that they couldn't fight back against.

19:04 - Why do you think workers that worked in the mines unionized?

20:13 - Without the government there are no labor unions, because they would be smashed by Pinkerton agencies or people hired, or even sometimes the government.

20:24 - Would the free market have desegregated restaurants in the South, or would the free market have done away with miscegenation, if it had been allowed to? Would Marten Luther King have been less effective than the free market? Those laws sprung up out of a majority sense of, in that time, that blacks should not... The free market there would not have supported integrated lunch counters.

23:23 - Government is necessary but must be held accountable for its decisions.

We tried a de-centralized gov't. It was called the Articles of Confederation.

..it didn't work. Get over it. If you want an actual union, you need a strong federal government. This lesson was already learned a couple CENTURIES ago.

That said though. If I were in Romney's shoes, trying to press flesh with voters and trying to score photo ops helping out, regardless that you're only doing it to score cheap political points...I probably would ignore reporters as much as I can too.

On one hand, I want him to answer the question, but on the other hand, I'd be thinking about punching the reporters in the throat for nagging him when he's obviously busy doing something else. Plenty of other opportunities to hound the guy. If we actually had a decent press, they'd hold his feet to the fire the next time he gave an interview. And quite honestly, he does seem to be clear on what he would want to do.

but here's the thing, we went through the same shit with Bush. FEMA survived it, they just had a crony put in charge.

Thanks for proving my point.

Also, I don't believe you have the ability to take my argument apart, despite your brag. I'll give you a power point if you can mount something even marginally decent. >> ^marbles:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Black and White thinking is an effective way to guard irrational belief systems from critique. If your beliefs can't stand on their own, then it's most beneficial to cloak them in the armor of a lofty ideal that is beyond critique. It's much easier to dehumanize than empathize.
-The religious cloak their irrational beliefs in the authority of an all-powerful, all-good, supernatural creator of the universe. Disagree with irrational religious beliefs and you are a heretic, bound for hell upon death.
-Ayn Rand cloaked her irrational beliefs in the armor of objectivity. Disagree with her irrational beliefs and you are disagreeing with objective truth, which makes you wrong before you open your mouth.
-George W. Bush cloaked his irrational beliefs in the armor of freedom. Disagree with his irrational conservative beliefs and you disagree with freedom. "You are either with us or against us", he said.
-Capitalist Libertarians cloak their irrational beliefs in armor of liberty. Disagree with irrational market beliefs and you disagree with liberty. You are a tyrant and a statist.
For those who believe in democracy, the belief system and the ideal are one in the same, for better or worse. There is no armor needed, because critique is an essential part of democracy.
I think it's important to always draw a distinction between the bible and morality; between selfishness and virtue; between nationalism and freedom; and between fundamentalist capitalism and liberty; so that we can deny this craven tactic from taking more hostages.

I love the conjecture, but I'm not sure what you're referring to. Freedom is black and white.
I would knock down all your strawmen, but I'll have to save that for later.
Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is tyranny of the majority. Democracy is government officials pandering to the crude and mindless whims of the masses. Democracy is a means to an end, naturally progressing into oligarchy.
Why do you think democracy was never mentioned in the Constitution, Articles of Confederation, or Declaration of Independence?
Democracy operates from the false concepts of relativism that everybody is exactly the same. Democracy you think in terms of the rights of man, not the rights of individuals.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Black and White thinking is an effective way to guard irrational belief systems from critique. If your beliefs can't stand on their own, then it's most beneficial to cloak them in the armor of a lofty ideal that is beyond critique. It's much easier to dehumanize than empathize.
-The religious cloak their irrational beliefs in the authority of an all-powerful, all-good, supernatural creator of the universe. Disagree with irrational religious beliefs and you are a heretic, bound for hell upon death.
-Ayn Rand cloaked her irrational beliefs in the armor of objectivity. Disagree with her irrational beliefs and you are disagreeing with objective truth, which makes you wrong before you open your mouth.
-George W. Bush cloaked his irrational beliefs in the armor of freedom. Disagree with his irrational conservative beliefs and you disagree with freedom. "You are either with us or against us", he said.
-Capitalist Libertarians cloak their irrational beliefs in armor of liberty. Disagree with irrational market beliefs and you disagree with liberty. You are a tyrant and a statist.
For those who believe in democracy, the belief system and the ideal are one in the same, for better or worse. There is no armor needed, because critique is an essential part of democracy.
I think it's important to always draw a distinction between the bible and morality; between selfishness and virtue; between nationalism and freedom; and between fundamentalist capitalism and liberty; so that we can deny this craven tactic from taking more hostages.


I love the conjecture, but I'm not sure what you're referring to. Freedom is black and white.

I would knock down all your strawmen, but I'll have to save that for later.

Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is tyranny of the majority. Democracy is government officials pandering to the crude and mindless whims of the masses. Democracy is a means to an end, naturally progressing into oligarchy.

Why do you think democracy was never mentioned in the Constitution, Articles of Confederation, or Declaration of Independence?

Democracy operates from the false concepts of relativism that everybody is exactly the same. Democracy you think in terms of the rights of man, not the rights of individuals.

You mean like regulation of interstate commerce?

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"

The Preamble also states the intent of the document is to fashion a government which will "promote the general Welfare". It's pretty reasonable to interpret things like Medicare and Medicaid as measures that would do so.

Regulation of interstate commerce and the Elastic Clause are vague for a reason. The founding fathers knew that they could not write a Constitution that would cover every single thing the federal gov't should be allowed to do. Amendments and these vague passages were intended to provide some flexibility. Most of the founding fathers were not intending for a federal government to be paralyzed. They wanted a limited government, but they were also correcting the mistakes made in the Articles of Confederation, which limited federal power far too much.

So, in your opinion, those programs are unconstitutional because you're a strict constructionist kind of person. That's okay. This is why we have people with diverse opinions. In the end though, usually the right calls are made. You know, like every one of those programs I mentioned that haven't been deemed unconstitutional, some of which have been around for over 100 years.

>> ^maestro156:

You'll note that the constitution only grants the power to make laws "necessary and proper" to execute the Powers already listed in the constitution.
Therefore, most of those programs you mentioned are simply unconstitutional, regardless of their value.

Still not sure how "secession" is not tied directly to slaves, slave trade and state sanctioned racism/discrimination.

The only time secession was actually declared was in the Confederate States of America (ie: the confederate slave trading racist motherfuckers). in 1869, the SCOTUS declared that secession is basically null. Also, I'm not sure how one can be constantly screaming about following the US Constitution, without understanding that it replaced the Articles of Confederation. Meaning, this state sovereignty schtick is hollow rhetoric. You can't believe firmly in one, and the other at the same time. Well you can, but you're either doing it to hide your real racist views, or you're an idiot.

The more and more you push this secession and property owners rights to discriminate against races, the more and more you scream "I'M A RACIST!".

I would like to think the Constitution evolves as society evolves, things that were pertinent and necessary back in the 1780s, aren't necessarily pertinent today. While the drafters of the constitution were learned men, the country was still vastly agrarian, and the population much smaller and less diverse. The way you govern such a society is different from how we govern ours today, that is not to say there aren't similarities. I think holding unflinchingly to 'Original Meaning', is to risk holding to archaic ideas that no longer serve society. However intent explores what they were trying to accomplish. Original meaning figures heavily as a key to understanding intent, but it is not intent by itself. I think The Articles of Confederation are a good example from the 1780s. The Articles had much of the same intent as the Constitution, however it became increasingly clear they weren't effective, and were eventually replaced, for a vast number of reasons, by the US constitution.

However, the question becomes, how dynamic. Personally I think intent and meaning should be followed so long as they are still relevant/functional (also up to interpretation). And deviation form the original meaning should be done only enough to make it relevant to current conditions.

I for one am happy to see that John McCain's wingman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has come to his senses and is urging Obama to seize the commanding heights of the economy.

In all seriousness, I have yet to hear an economist that isn't calling for us to do this, pronto, and I'm glad one of the prominent Republicans in Congress is saying they're in favor of it publicly.

If it's fear of being called a socialist that's holding Geitner, Summers, and Obama back, get the fuck over it; morons are going to call him a radical communist even if he dismantles the federal government entirely, and reverts us to the Articles of Confederation.

Romney's Pandering Speech
http://ffrf.org/news/2007/romneyspeech.php

Romney needs a fact-checker. He misleadingly stated that the nation's founders "sought the blessings of the Creator." There was indeed prayer at the First Continental Congress, which adopted the failed Articles of Confederation. Romney piously concluded his talk with a prayer attributed to Sam Adams from that event. But he failed to mention that there was no prayer at the constitutional convention that crafted our living and godless constitution.

After promising not to "confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution," Romney immediately vowed: "When I place my hand on the bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God." Art. II, Sec. 1 of the US Constitution, providing the presidential oath of office, contains no reference to a god or the bible. But, of course, Romney was signaling to fundamentalists that he would use their book, not the Book of Mormon.

As the difference between JFK's and Romney's speeches reveal, in recent years the notion of the separation between church and state has been debased, disrespected and routinely dissed. The deterioration since 1960 in respect for this pinnacle constitutional precept is mind-boggling.

Instead of affirming the constitution's prohibition of a religious test for public office, Romney's speech pandered to the notion that candidates must be publicly pious, and fed the myth that good citizenship requires religious faith.