>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I think it is more accurate to define it as a collusion where both benefit greatly at the expense of others. Larger government responsibility makes it necessary for big business to take up the "red white and blue" and make "suggestions" to government regulators. Government officials have the power of ink, but need those campaign dollars come election time. So really, both relationships are beneficial except to their host, normal people and business.
I don't see many ways around the problem of government regulatory "needs" creating larger and larger business without being very oppressive with freedoms. If you prevented all people who have interest in a given area from donating to representatives who share similar views, maybe. But then what kind of world are you making? Not one that I would want to live in.


I agree, sorta. It's not collusion between some monolithic entity known as "government", it's corporations bribing lots of individuals within government, and by that method exerting massive control over the institution as a whole. That's not collusion in the traditional sense, since "government" isn't an equal partner, and doesn't gain anything at all from the relationship. Politicians aren't really "equal" either, since I guarantee corporate influence comes in the form of carrots and sticks (i.e. help us out on this, or we'll back your opponent in November!).

As for reducing the influence of money on politics, I think public financing of campaigns is one way to go. Then ban independent campaign donations, and independent expenditures that target a specific candidate.

Add in bans on being allowed to sit on a committee, or join the regulatory agency for an industry you worked in before coming to government, and a 10-year ban on working in the industry afterwards, and we've closed the biggest sources of corruption.

But none of that is possible unless we overturn Citizen's United with a Constitutional amendment...

Fucking ridiculous. When 3/4 of the nation can oppose a constitutional amendment, and yet it still passes, that's proof enough that this government is no longer "of the people, for the people."

THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!!!!11!1

We need a constitutional amendment for:

1. Instant runoff voting in presidential elections
2. Congressional representation proportional to the nationwide popular vote for a party (this reduces the incentive for local pork barrel bullshit)

>> ^blankfist:

The $400 registration fee shouldn't be that much. They even charge a lot for people who plan on storing their cars and not driving them, so it's obviously not meant to pay for the roads. It's revenue generation.

Okay, two things on this. How do you know what the optimal market price of driving on roads would be? Second, what's wrong with revenue generation? Are you willing to make up for the shortfall with a tax on something else?

>> ^blankfist:
Besides, gasoline tax was put there specifically to pay for the roads. They don't need to increase it, because it increases itself the more people use it. The more you drive, the more gas you consume, therefore the more you pay the state to maintain the roads.

Wait, so you think that the price should be fixed, and never change? What if the costs of maintaining the roads goes up? Hell, what if cars get more efficient? What if the wear and tear on the road isn't proportional to the amount of gas purchased in the state?

You also act as if this is some incontrovertible law of nature that binds gasoline taxes to roads. There's no Constitutional amendment that dictates that gasoline tax must completely, and solely pay for roads. I would go so far as to say that while it's common that all gas tax revenue goes to roads, there probably isn't a single place in America where that revenue is sufficient to pay for all road maintenance.

>> ^blankfist:
Second, we can order most things online too, but last time I did that I was without a valid license for a month after mine expired. And I submitted everything on time. And we sure as hell don't have polite people in any of the government buildings here in LA. At least I've never seen them.

Lastly, we already charge a court cost. The city of LA isn't poor. It spends too much and therefore claims to be broke, but it takes in a lot.


Demand better then. Just be prepared to be asked for more money to pay for improved services. If you have some suggestion on how to improve service without increasing cost, tell your representative. Hell, tell everyone, and try to build up an advocacy group.

>> ^blankfist:


Corporations exist because government gives them legitimacy. They also receive corporate welfare, subsidies, regulatory favors, enjoy franchise monopolies, etc. In rare occasions the government has even used eminent domain in their favor, i.e. Walmart.
So you tell me why corporations rule the marketplace and why small business entrepreneurs find it tough to compete.


Ah, absolutely true, but this bias enables those large businesses to stomp small competition out of the market with marketing and buyouts. The problem is the money in the entire system. The politicians and corporations have developed a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" partnership. The politicians funded by these large corporations then turn around and pass legislation favorable to the corporation in question. In this environment the worker class has no control, which is what the majority are rapidly becoming. Since government rules and regulations are still somewhat under our control via the democratic process, we need to join together to take the money out of politics and then elect competent leaders. If we solely vilify government and seek to destroy its power, we'll have no way to limit the government.

We can do this now through the democratic process if we join together before it's too late. While we may hold somewhat different political beliefs, we need to put those aside for now to focus on electing leaders whose sole platform is to take the money out of politics. When our voice is restored to the nation's government we can discuss other topics further in a civil manner.

Mind you, when I say money out of politics I mean we need to vote for controls to ensure money stays out of politics indefinitely. I would propose a smartly worded constitutional amendment.

I do want to encourage innovative business management, but when large corporations can wipe up their worker's conditions and poor customer service with advertising and political bribes, we need to lower the volume to make our voices heard. Internet discussion groups like this are one of our last remaining avenues for civil discussion of this nature. Let's work together to figure out what our priorities are.

I'm mostly in agreement with this dude, but he errs when says that the 18th Amendment was an illegal constitutional amendment. The 18th Amendment was part of the Constitution, therefore that by itself made it legal, and the Volstead Act which it enforced was also legal, at the time. The 21st Amendment undid the 18th Amendment, thereby invalidating the Volstead Act as well, but until that time both the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act were perfectly legal. Not that I endorse the 18th Amendment or the Volstead Act, but that's just the way it was.

He also equated the "pursuit of happiness" with property, but that's not what Jefferson intended when he wrote the "pursuit of happiness." He replaced "property" with "pursuit of happiness," deliberately breaking away from John Locke's "life, liberty, and property." Now I'll grant you that the real meaning of "pursuit of happiness" is somewhat debatable, but it is an error to simply state that "property" is the same as the "pursuit of happiness."

I mention these two things because it sort of undermines his arguments when he states two things that are erroneous. Otherwise I'll go along with what he says. The drug war is complete bullshit, another exercise to exert control over the people, antithetical to liberty.

United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Which is to say, once your state decides to become part of the United States by legally becoming a party to the Constitution, you can't ignore the supreme law of the land.

The Civil War pretty much settled the question of secession. You can't pull up stakes and leave the union unilaterally. You can try, of course, but if what you're looking for is a peaceful way to do it, claiming you already have the legal right to do so just won't cut it.

Maybe you should try to get Congress to pass a law stating you're allowed to leave the Union. Better still, a Constitutional amendment that provides a legal mechanism for secession.

Until then, plan on all 50 states remaining a part of the United States, and bound by the laws passed by Congress.

@Nordlich
You generalize to an extreme point of your own view. People elect officials who make the laws. Those officals can make whatever laws they want for years after they are elected without any input from the people... Sometimes we vote directly to constitutional amendments; however, this is rare and only a lot of money can get the amendment to the ballot anyways. Secondly, you not respecting is fine so long as you deal with the consequences should a dispute arise. Society has been around before you, and it will be around after only because it follows laws as a whole.
Oh--and if you truly do not respect authority, then you do not respect the 1st amendment. And since you do not respect authority, you must love the cop because he did not respect those in authority over him--those who wrote his laws! Is Mr. No Respect Copperson your hero?

@Crosswords
You do realize he did not "get away with something so blatant as that," right? A ten day suspension (In law enforcement) is not getting off scot-free as you imply. It may seem like a slap on the hand, but even that is a weak assessment. Every termination in Civil Service takes three things, time, progressive discipline and documentation, or sans that, a lawsuits will follow and the wrongfully terminated cop, even at fault, will sue and win and the taxpayer will be left with the liability. A teacher with tenure is just as equally protected as law enforcement and most other jobs do not have cameras to catch people in the first place so that point is mute. What you should have said is that only a cop deals with people every day and because of that environment, would attempt something so blatant and dumb.

Out of the millions of cumulative hours law enforcement work --actually billions probably--constantly around criminals, I would say that the percentage of incidents is darn good... Yes, there are some mental cops, childish cops, arrogant cops... And yes, I am glad they have cameras and that the cameras are subject to public record. I just wish people would stop foaming at the mouth and scapegoating the good cops because of the bad cops. The average citizen is far worse than the average law enforcement official in my personal experience.

Lastly, I love how this guy is suing the taxpayers... The department seems to have laws against what the officer did and since they offically disciplined him, looks like Suer Mc Suerson won't get a dime from them... Still, they will probably settle out of court because that is cheaper for corporations and departments... I would not disagree with suing the cop himself... but, that's another debate.

Inconvenienced, no...I was one of "them". And when I lived in San Diego I never went north of Carlsbad, so I didn't have to go through the San Clemente checkpoint. You are right on reaching for the camera, not cool.

There are some different rules regarding searches at the border, but this is obviously a checkpoint not at the border so there are enhanced requirements. Quick article on border searches.

If this guy (or anyone - hint, hint) wants to do some good, go out and collect signatures and get the thing de-funded and/or closed down.

I gotta agree with Ron on this, but it's nice to see some real back and forth. I just wish we could get some real debate instead of some 5 min talking points roundtable on Larry King or something. Interesting notes I've heard but never see discussed:

* Given a single payer system: How will preventative medicine work in principal? If person A begins smoking and gets lung cancer, does that person get the same deal as everyone else? Or more likely, if person A is obese and as a result has to have more treatments for a particular problem, does that give the government or the people paying the right to decide what he can and can't eat? Just thinking. (Following along with the ban of Trans-fats, and the talk about a soda tax)

* With the close ties of the healthcare cos and the government now, what incentive would they have to sever the relationship? A million in campaign funds pre-single payer is the same as a million post-single payer. This is what I've heard some people refer to as the rise of Medical Industrial Complex(An obvious play off the old Military Industrial Complex term).

* Why isn't closer examination given to US healthcare pre-HMOs? I might be missing something, but this didn't seem to be a hot button issue in the 10's, 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's?

* Why is the term 'insurance' used so incorrectly? If I used the term fire insurance the way some are using health insurance, people would start looking at me funny. The catastrophic-centric part seems neglected and now it covers everything from a skinned knee to a tumor. Can we give it a new name or something to differentiate? Maybe just use health care?

* Assuming the GAO's analysis that the US government is effectively broke, and social security is essentially a ponzi scheme, how does that factor in to the debate? Or put generally, given the last 8 years of Bush (including a Patriot Act, 9/11 & Katrina), what evidence is there that any major new system will be run any better and cost any less?

* Following along with the post about laws changing to define rights: If we have a framework to change the laws, and the right to healthcare is HUGE change, why isn't an official constitutional amendment being put forth that makes the responsibilities clear? Seems that if we could draft something as dumb as 'no alcohol', something can be proposed in regards to healthcare.

Just thinking out loud here. I have lots more questions (including the role of States) if anybody is still awake at this point

btw, here is the 10th amendment

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

And yet more random stuff:

"As of August 2009, 37 states have introduced resolutions in support of "state sovereignty" under the 10th Amendment. In seven states the resolutions passed (Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Tennessee).
Further, two states (Montana and Tennessee) have passed specific legislation exempting residents from certain federal firearms regulations, while Arizona has a proposed constitutional amendment (to be voted on in 2010) which would nullify a national health care system from operating in the state"

lets examine what republicans stand for.
limited government=patriot act, wire tapping.
politicians answerable= iraq,wmd's.nuclear weapons.etc.
low taxation=read my lips(bush sr).out of control deficit spending.
constitution= amend it to ban gay marriage
modern leftists are not against a strong military,strong bordors or citizenship. thats just republican scare tactic bullshit.

Hm, my choice of the word "dangerous" may have been a poor one; I agree that Ron Paul is not a "threat" to the Democratic party in that he could dismantle or polarize it, I meant more in the sense that he presents a much more palatable and reasonable alternative to the stances that Democrats take - more so than any other Republican I can think of.

Also of note is his ability to actually AGREE with Democrats on certain points as opposed to being a contrarian Republican ("I must take the opposite position no matter what") that so many conservatives have become. As a whole, Ron Paul is a very appealing candidate even to me, a very progressive liberal (I'm so far left I'm not registered Democrat), because although he takes a more traditional stance on economic and foreign policy issues, he is extremely rational in his opinions and beliefs. Someone who can present an alternative point of view to many of the controversial positions Democrats take is exactly what is needed to help Republicans. I really want to see open and even-handed debate, not this lopsided mess that Republicans keep digging themselves deeper into.

I also really like his belief in the power of States' rights to ultimately make their own local decisions on whether to allow the most controversial issues like gay marriage and marijuana legalization. Even though I wish there would be constitutional amendments for those sorts of major issues, he might be right that just letting the States themselves decide what they actually want to do would be the only way of actually getting those debates settled and the necessary legislation passed.

TL;DR version: Ron Paul is articulate and not a spluttering blowhard, and is not immune to the forces of social and generational change.

>> ^NetRunner:
Actually, I don't find Ron Paul or libertarians dangerous as a Democrat at all
...
The implications of Rand Paul running for Senate in KY works out the same way from my point of view; it's only good news.
However, the DSCC is still hoping Bunning decides to run, because then it becomes a possible Democratic pickup.

Unfortunately, Dana is mostly right. The populace is often too stupid to follow the logic here, but the most stringent gun rights promoters have ignored the loss of other rights (which they often claimed their guns would protect)so long as their gun rights were (for the most part) left alone. Of course, requiring registration and/or (expensive) classes to own a gun do fit the definition of "infringed" :
" ...This means that the gun rights activists have already lost their most important fight and are being pushed down the slippery slope towards the loss of all gun ownership rights.
Regulation is encroachment and weakening of any right, so is registration.
I, for one, can't understand how any federal law restricting any gun ownership right in any way can be legal, since they all, by definition, would violate the second amendment. Somehow, it seems, the courts have changed the definition of "infringed" from "weakened/encroached" to "removed completely".
The founding fathers knew the definition of the words they put in the constitution, the bill of rights, and the amendments. It is disgusting that they are so often ignored or twisted, even by the courts but more often by the legislative and executive branches without meaningful opposition. Instead of poorly thought out (and logically unconstitutional) laws, they should be pushing for a constitutional amendment to "regulate" guns.
Even if you disagree with the gun rights activists, you should be enraged that our constitution and bill of rights are regularly being ignored. The next right they ignore/dilute/regulate may be YOUR favorite.

Just what the US needs: A constitutional amendment to secure parents the opportunity to hit their kids.