>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Psychologic & boise_lib
You're missing the point. Bureaucracies are ponzi schemes of power.
You know ponzi schemes don't work, so why invest your power in one.
At least in a free market, there's an ebb and flow of power
So while, yes, the strong can push around the weak; the weak can also gang up on the strong. Two strongs can flank the weaks. One weak can poison the well of the strongs. You get the point, yes?
In bureaucracies, power only moves one way. Up.. away from you.
What if you don't see a return from the scheme and want out?
You truly don't have any recourse then Boise_Lib
~~~
I'll put it this way.
"Free market violence" - for lack of a better term - is random and fair. You can always gain lose or remain neutral in your power.
State sanctioned violence is worse because the power you forfeit for a false sense of security is inevitably be used against you to control your life.
The deck is constantly stacked against you.


People form groups either way.

The world is libertarian by nature, but people tend to form societies because it's stronger than an individual. If that society can't protect itself (from within or without) then it will be replaced by a stronger one. Get rid of government and new ones will emerge (or "annex").

I certainly have my complaints about the various types of governments around the world, but those are critiques of the implementations rather than the idea of government. I'd much rather live under a flawed representative government than whoever happens to amass the most individual power from the vacuum.

I can't help that assholes can get hired as police officers, but I still value law enforcement. I feel that abuses can be addressed without throwing the entire system out. I've known plenty of bad cops, but I've known far more cops that hate people like that and see cameras as a protection rather than a threat.

@Psychologic & boise_lib

You're missing the point. Bureaucracies are ponzi schemes of power.

You know ponzi schemes don't work, so why invest your power in one.
At least in a free market, there's an ebb and flow of power

So while, yes, the strong can push around the weak; the weak can also gang up on the strong. Two strongs can flank the weaks. One weak can poison the well of the strongs. You get the point, yes?

In bureaucracies, power only moves one way. Up.. away from you.

What if you don't see a return from the scheme and want out?
You truly don't have any recourse then @Boise_Lib
~~~
I'll put it this way.

"Free market violence" - for lack of a better term - is random and fair. You can always gain lose or remain neutral in your power.

State sanctioned violence is worse because the power you forfeit for a false sense of security is inevitably be used against you to control your life.
The deck is constantly stacked against you.

*blocked $%§&§ you, german bureaucracy!

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^MaxWilder:
She's got every right to complain.
I agree but I think she's got an attitude problem. She's a judge and this is her courthouse; you're telling me she doesn't have enough pull to have the stairs modified? For $50 plus a few hours labor this whole thing is fixed. Instead she gets CNN on the case. Sounds like she's more interesting in making an ordeal than solving the problem; excellent qualities for a judge, I might add.


She's got an attitude problem? She quotes the pushback she's gotten from talking to whoever is in charge of the building. "That they hope people will be mature? Um, that's not a solution." The attitude problem is from whoever won't spend the few hundred bucks to get the glass frosted.

Also, there is another set of stairs below, so you can't wall it off with plants. The plants would cost more than frosting the glass anyway.

To everybody who says this is a dumb story, I agree. Why isn't the building manager getting it fixed immediately? That may be a better story. Fucking government bureaucracy.

Shepppard said:
◄
@petpeeved

The reason people need to obtain a permit is because people gathering to protest could lead to a "security risk".

May not happen, but if you incite enough people to do something stupid, all those stupid people with adrenaline running through their veins may lead to them damaging the area they're protesting on.

Granted, it could be seen as an overly elaborate way to stop people from protesting, but it's more of a damage control then a restriction.

Essentially, you get a permit to allow you access to a venue, and should something go wrong at that venue, you're held accountable for it. So, to that end, I don't think someone "Peacefully assembling" should have ANY trouble obtaining a permit, and should therefore take responsibility for whatever their "peaceful protestors" do to the venue they're at. After all, they're peaceful, nothing should get damaged. Right?

@Genjipatrick

Basically, see @Barboards2.

Vague terms to justify stepping on fundamental civil rights is a hallmark of the 20th and now 21st century. "Security Risk" sounds just like one that I could see any right wing politician using to justify anything that opposes their agenda. The protests of the 1960s were messy, disruptive, powerful and sometimes very effective but in almost all cases where there was violence, it emanated from the government, not the protesters. Americans haven't conducted a large scale armed organized resistance against the government since the Civil War so what exactly is the "security risk" of protesting without a permit? Damage to property? We have laws to cover that. No need, and no right, to insert a layer of bureaucracy on top of the First Amendment. In fact, we have so many laws on the books now that almost every conceivable (and inconceivable as evidenced by the recent Jefferson Memorial arrests for dancing) offense is covered by normal criminal procedures.

To put it bluntly: do you not feel uneasy about say, protesters being allowed only to protest in a corral many blocks and sometimes a mile from the actual site of the event or politician that is the subject of the protest? Look at the G8 summits. That's standard practice now simply because of some property damage. That's not a protest; that's a wax museum depicting a protest.

Read this: it's just one of a dozen similar accounts across the globe:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/05/g8.globaleconomy1

Muppets owned by Disney are not real muppets. Movies produced by bureaucracies are inevitably uninspired and bland.

That's one issue. People won't be incentivized by a tax write-off for charitable contributions. Though, those contributions won't make you better off with regard to the amount you pay, just who gets the money. But my point isn't about just contributions, it's mainly about "charitable actions" (reread my comment).

Most hospitals here are created by churches, a lot of charities are also run by churches and humanitarians, and a number of other services like soup kitchens run on private charities. Lots of good people filling a charitable need in society.

And with a person's added individual income not stolen to pay for spendthrift boondoggles like the Federal Government's wars and defense spending and the many needless bureaucracies, he'd have more for himself, and would most likely give more. Or spend his money in a way that would benefit charities he believed in.

And I tend to believe people are generally good in nature. Also I'm kind of high right now, so there's that.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
Really? I don't have any citations offhand, but my understanding is that total charitable contributions are directly proportional to the amount they may be deducted from taxes, i.e., the greater the incentive to give, the more is given. If all incentives to donate were removed, surely the amounts donated to charity would decrease?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I do believe charitable actions would be higher in an individualist society.

"Spreading lies?" No, that really is Dear Leader saying we all gots to sacrifice.

Your point is that you have agreed to all the evil guvmint's demands but one: the right to collective bargaining.

Well, here's my take: government workers of any kind shouldn't be allowed to unionize. Period. It was a mistake to ever let it happen.

Wisconsin’s teachers make a little more money than they’re letting on

Even with the concessions, these educators are living large. Don't hold your breath waiting for sympathy, I'm out here in the real performance-based world, the one the schools bash.

I don't remember anyone voting for compulsory education in government schools, overseen by a federal leviathan bureaucracy. There is nothing anywhere in the Constitution about a "right" to a "free" education. If guvmint can force this codswallop on taxpayers whether or not they even have children, then why wouldn't it change the rules mid-game? The socialist wants a government big enough to give him everything he ever wanted, which means it's big enough to take it all away.

Deal.



>> ^ldeadeyesl:

Sigh Looks like Quantum is believing what his news shows are telling him again. Clearly you haven't been well informed on the matter. So as a protester in Madison let me educate you to what we are asking for. Unions have offered to meet all of the financial demands. They offered to sacrifice everything except their future right to collectively bargain. Why is the government demanding to break up the workers right to organize? This whole issue comes to head at a simple difference in belief. The government should hold all the power over workers. Or workers should have some rights. Don't perpetuate all the lies out there. These unions have offered to meet the increases in payment for their benefits. This is about workers rights. Sadly the anti-union interest groups are making it about greed, when that has nothing to do with the issue. People like Quantum don't do the research and spread the lies.

The majority of the American people aren't buying the leftmedia's BS spin about this lone vermin, whose heinous act was apolitical.

When the spotlight shone on the vermin, it was discovered those around him considered him to be a left-wing crank, who listed the communist manifesto as one of his inspirations.

Leftmedia MADE this political to preserve democrat power, aid ratings-crippled obama and denounce Palin (who, if she wasn't a real threat to the left's power, would be ignored).

Why attack Palin? Oh, that's right.....Rule 11 from Scum Alinksy's Rules for Radicals

Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.



What's this?

http://www.verumserum.com/media/2010/03/DLC-Targeting-map.gif

Violent imagery!

But those aren't crosshairs! you say. Are these?


Compared to (paraphrased from memory):
Don't retreat, reload
First to the ballot box, if that doesn't work, then to the bullet box
The recent news story of the gun manufacturer who was offering a limited edition run of a automatic weapon gun part inscribed with "you lie"
Water the tree of liberty with blood

Metaphors all, like when liberals accuse conservatives of trying to "kill children" for suggesting cutbacks to government programs.


Water the tree quote? Democrat T. Jefferson: "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

I think you have to give it up, Q. That, or find some better examples. These don't make it.

“The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength." ---Scum Alinksy. Again.

I'm on VS for fun. It is not necessary for me to provide examples to counter a leftmedia fabrication, and the stupid quotes from liberals are their own monument, whether or not they exactly fit the occasion.

The real required response to recent rampant liberalism was delivered November 2nd.

For the most part, I agree @BoneyD. I wouldn't have been personally offended had I been on that ship but I do have some misgivings.

Members of the military tend to have a pretty crude, dark, and mean/offensive - from a civilian point of view - sense of humor. The flip side is that most of them have pretty thick skin as well and aren't offended as easily. I've heard my share of jokes that I wont tell to most civilians.

His 'gay' insults I found to be the worst part but it's hardly surprising considering he is part of an organization that until very very recently considered homosexuality worse than friendly fire.

That said, my disagreement stems from his position and how he responded to criticism. As a high-ranking officer in command (or soon to be in command) of a large number of men and women it is his job to ensure a high level of morale, to ensure his people feel safe in their place of duty and to ensure those below him feel confident with him in the lead. I could see how these videos would undermine all three, even before he refused to stop after there were complaints.

My initial response when hearing about the videos was of how his actions reflected on the Navy itself. The following is a quote from Canadian naval officer Lt(N) P. Richard Moller from his paper entitled "Bureaucracy Versus Ethics" which, I think, addresses that issue well (even if from a Canadian standpoint):

"We must, at all times, remember that while we are wearing this uniform we represent the government and the people of Canada, as well as the element whose uniform we wear. Whatever we do reflects, for better or for worse, on ourselves, our element, and on the people of Canada. We have been entrusted with the responsibility of upholding the honour of our uniform, and all that it represents. The whole world will judge this uniform and Canada on our conduct while wearing it.
We must, therefore, comport ourselves on all occasions, and in all circumstances in such a manner as to reflect credit upon our element, our government, and our country. Our every act must encourage all people to have confidence in this uniform, and what it represents."


While the videos weren't personally offensive, I think they reflected badly on the US Navy and that is why such a big issue is being made of them.

*promote the Department of Homeland Security Bureaucracy keeping us safe.

Name a civilization without a government. Government, economies, tech, art and culture are all very much intertwined. They are absolutely linked. I'm not sure what point you were going for with that comment. And what's with the insults? Nutter? QM? Why the cheap rhetoric?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society


In reply to this comment by GenjiKilpatrick:
psh. what is your definition of civilization exactly?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civilization

Because linking bureaucracy with the development of culture and art and technology makes you sound like a nutter.

Like the liberal version of pennypacker or QM.. @_@

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Railing against the concept of government is basically railing against civilization.

psh. what is your definition of civilization exactly?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civilization

Because linking bureaucracy with the development of culture and art and technology makes you sound like a nutter.

Like the liberal version of pennypacker or QM.. @_@

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Railing against the concept of government is basically railing against civilization.

>> ^dag:

Sorry, those figures are incorrect. Very conservative estimates put defense spending at over 20% of the budget. More realistic estimates put it much higher.
>> ^quantumushroom:
National defense is a legitimate Constitutional duty. Overall, U.S. defense spending is a surprisingly small portion of the budget, not even 10%. Meanwhile, the federal mafia now gobbles up almost HALF of the total American economy (GDP) compared to about 22% sixty years ago.
Where's the bulk of the money going? Entitlements, social programs and bureaucracy.
Why is any liberal complaining about the TSA whilst pushing for TSA-quality health care?

>> ^dag:
I always hear conservatives clamoring for small government- until the topic of the defense budget comes around. You want small government? Start at the Pentagon.



Since when has accuracy or reality for that matter had anything to do with the majority of his posts. Why bother when you can just make up fun numbers to prove your point.

You are one of the most ill-informed disingenuous windbags ever.

~~~
Oh okay. Let's see what you brought for lunch.

#1
The only time the Constitution mentions national defense is in the preamble.
Today those militias are known as the National Guard.

Your point being? That the militia is the only "authorized" defense? Is there no oath to “preserve, protect and defend the US Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic?"

You can argue the size and scope of the military, but not the mandate of its existence.

#2
All Transportation Security Administration [TSA] spending falls under the jurisdiction of Homeland Security. The Department of Defense budget is a completely different budget.

Not sure what your point is here. I mentioned nothing about the monies of the TSA, only that if you love government sloth and ineptitude, you can expect more of the same from theoretical "Health Security" workers just like TSAers.

Small portion my ass (referring to military budget).

The necessary FIFTH of the economy is dwarfed by the entitlements that are bankrupting the future.

#3
Every year, Social Security and Medicare taxes are stolen out of our wages with a guarantee that we'll be repaid.

You said it, not me. I merely pointed out that there is no Constitutional basis for such programs, both of which are rife with fraud and waste. You can argue the merits of these programs (there are many) but not their Unconstitutional origins. Oh, BTW, Social Security is a tax. And the government doesn't have to pay you a dime of it.

Are you suggesting the government should renege on its 2 Trillion dollar obligation to tax-payers?! *GASP!*

There is no one solution for the Ponzi scheme of SS, but if it's going to be realistically tackled, none of the solutions will be pleasant.

#4
Being harassed at the airport isn't a necessity nor a fundamental right.


Right now, it's their bullsh!t rules. If public opinion turns against the TSA, it's gone. Has it? Not yet.

Healthcare [Well-being] is.

Hope you are able to recognize the difference between opinion and fact. "Health care is a human right" is an opinion, but why do you stop there? Do you believe housing, food, jobs, transportation, etc. are also "human rights" that the State is required to provide?

Put government in charge of health care and you give some people who might have had no care some mediocre care while condemning others to rationing and life-threatening bureaucracy.

And if you think health care is made cheaper and more efficient by government, well, good luck with alllll that.

~~~
I know I've completely wasted my time and breath in yet another vain attempt to point out your fallacies.

You've wasted your time to the extent there's nothing new here. I observe the results of socialism, the trade-offs disguised as solutions, and remain unimpressed. I'm not buying into this BS which isn't worth my money or my freedom, and as Nov 2nd proved, neither is the rest of the USA (except in the usual dummy areas). I'm less of a threat to you than the bureaucrats you're fighting to have take over your life and mine.