So which breed promotes "citizens taking their duties seriously" the most? And what if one doesn't breed it at all?

Liberalism, Conservatism, or Libertarianism?

And yes, there is an answer to both of those questions--but I won't give it because I don't know it truthfully.

If you think it is Liberalism, then why? (The short version plz ) If you never questioned whether this was important, which belief breeds better citizens, then that is bad indeed, but most never do.

>> ^NetRunner:

@GeeSussFreeK there's a lot in here I like and agree with. Just going to randomly interject some thoughts I had as I read it:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
[Ron Paul] is an advocate of declaring war, not the president just going in willy nilly. We can never really answer the question of if a particular war is good or not morally for every person at once, but we don't want to leave that moral choice in the hands of one man for no good reason other than self defense.
But Congress declared the wars that Ron Paul, as one man, wants to end. Paul's adherence to the constitution is selective on quite a wide range of topics, this one included.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
That is one of the major dangers I see in Statism is when you outsource responsibility, you usually don't relegate much thought to it. The plumber fixes my pipes, I don't concern myself with how they work.
Except that's not "statism," that's division of labor. Specifically the kind that is the cornerstone of a market economy.
As an aside, you need to just remove the word "statism" from your vocabulary. No one is an advocate of "statism" -- statists only exist in the imaginations of right-wing ideologues.
Case in point, you're specifically talking about markets and the kind of "rational self-interest" inherent in the "free" market gospel of the right, but somehow think it's something entirely the opposite, even though your example is a purely market-based example.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Likewise, when you place all sorts of powers in agents hands, you tend to concern yourself with the goings ons...till they break. I think a Statism and Libertarianism have the same net effect if the people don't take an active concern in all forms of domestic affairs.
Right, like investment banking.
Liberals/social democrats/European socialists are united in saying what you're saying: the system will never work unless people take their responsibility as citizens seriously.
From where I sit, it's the right who are saying the opposite. They say "freedom" is defined by how completely you can abdicate your civic duties. You should never have to worry about anyone or anything that doesn't directly relate to your own direct personal interest.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think that Statism markets might have a higher entropy, though, because it invokes an active outsourcing of all matters of life to agents. While that could work if you are always haggling your agent to make sure he is doing his best, and not up to shenanigans, why not just cut out the middleman and keep up with the basic concern yourself?
Agreed, once I correct the label.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think the idea of the Democracy is starting to fail, not because of some flaw in it that wasn't already widely known, but the culture we find ourselves in. For a Democracy to exist in a healthy way, each citizen has to see his role as a citizen to provide enrichment for the body politic. In this way, the Wests focus on individual rights and Libertarian ethics sorts of causes entropy on this notion. We would much rather be watching a movie, or some other form of playboy recreation, then running down to our local City Council and partake of our duty (not only to others, but ourselves).
I don't mean to ramble, but I wanted to make that point, that it doesn't matter if you are a federalist, or a anti-federalist. If your voting body is poor in intellect, will, and a toxic cultural environment, then no matter of political philosophy will save you. I think Jefferson foresaw that this entropy, and the saying, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." comes from; that things have to get really bad enough for us to actually care about democracy for it to work again for us, and more importantly, us for it.
I totally agree with this, and it's very well put to boot.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Sometimes, dare I say most times, it is actually better to let those whom are convicted on the goodness of something to take the risk themselves and not try and hedge everyone in with them.

I don't really want to wade into the debate about Libya in particular (I think it was all shades of grey, and what we did was neither commendable nor reprehensible), but I will point out that it seems you're expressing the very abdication of civic duty you were condemning a few paragraphs before.
It's exactly the same attitude people have about their pipes -- they don't think they should have to think about them unless it's creating a problem for them directly. Either that's their inalienable right to liberty that we're morally obligated to respect, or that's the apathy that's causing our whole world to crumble around us which we're morally obligated to condemn.
I think I've made it clear which one I think it is.

@GeeSussFreeK there's a lot in here I like and agree with. Just going to randomly interject some thoughts I had as I read it:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

[Ron Paul] is an advocate of declaring war, not the president just going in willy nilly. We can never really answer the question of if a particular war is good or not morally for every person at once, but we don't want to leave that moral choice in the hands of one man for no good reason other than self defense.

But Congress declared the wars that Ron Paul, as one man, wants to end. Paul's adherence to the constitution is selective on quite a wide range of topics, this one included.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
That is one of the major dangers I see in Statism is when you outsource responsibility, you usually don't relegate much thought to it. The plumber fixes my pipes, I don't concern myself with how they work.

Except that's not "statism," that's division of labor. Specifically the kind that is the cornerstone of a market economy.

As an aside, you need to just remove the word "statism" from your vocabulary. No one is an advocate of "statism" -- statists only exist in the imaginations of right-wing ideologues.

Case in point, you're specifically talking about markets and the kind of "rational self-interest" inherent in the "free" market gospel of the right, but somehow think it's something entirely the opposite, even though your example is a purely market-based example.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Likewise, when you place all sorts of powers in agents hands, you tend to concern yourself with the goings ons...till they break. I think a Statism and Libertarianism have the same net effect if the people don't take an active concern in all forms of domestic affairs.

Right, like investment banking.

Liberals/social democrats/European socialists are united in saying what you're saying: the system will never work unless people take their responsibility as citizens seriously.

From where I sit, it's the right who are saying the opposite. They say "freedom" is defined by how completely you can abdicate your civic duties. You should never have to worry about anyone or anything that doesn't directly relate to your own direct personal interest.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think that Statism markets might have a higher entropy, though, because it invokes an active outsourcing of all matters of life to agents. While that could work if you are always haggling your agent to make sure he is doing his best, and not up to shenanigans, why not just cut out the middleman and keep up with the basic concern yourself?

Agreed, once I correct the label.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think the idea of the Democracy is starting to fail, not because of some flaw in it that wasn't already widely known, but the culture we find ourselves in. For a Democracy to exist in a healthy way, each citizen has to see his role as a citizen to provide enrichment for the body politic. In this way, the Wests focus on individual rights and Libertarian ethics sorts of causes entropy on this notion. We would much rather be watching a movie, or some other form of playboy recreation, then running down to our local City Council and partake of our duty (not only to others, but ourselves).
I don't mean to ramble, but I wanted to make that point, that it doesn't matter if you are a federalist, or a anti-federalist. If your voting body is poor in intellect, will, and a toxic cultural environment, then no matter of political philosophy will save you. I think Jefferson foresaw that this entropy, and the saying, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." comes from; that things have to get really bad enough for us to actually care about democracy for it to work again for us, and more importantly, us for it.

I totally agree with this, and it's very well put to boot.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Sometimes, dare I say most times, it is actually better to let those whom are convicted on the goodness of something to take the risk themselves and not try and hedge everyone in with them.


I don't really want to wade into the debate about Libya in particular (I think it was all shades of grey, and what we did was neither commendable nor reprehensible), but I will point out that it seems you're expressing the very abdication of civic duty you were condemning a few paragraphs before.

It's exactly the same attitude people have about their pipes -- they don't think they should have to think about them unless it's creating a problem for them directly. Either that's their inalienable right to liberty that we're morally obligated to respect, or that's the apathy that's causing our whole world to crumble around us which we're morally obligated to condemn.

I think I've made it clear which one I think it is.

>> ^Grimm:

RP wants to end all the needless wars. If any war is worth fighting then he would only require that Congress "declares war" as it is outlined in the Constitution.


Exactly, I think that would answer some of @bcglorf 's hold up on isolationism. Like isn't so black and white, especially on matter of war. Which is why he is an advocate of declaring war, not the president just going in willy nilly. We can never really answer the question of if a particular war is good or not morally for every person at once, but we don't want to leave that moral choice in the hands of one man for no good reason other than self defense. My like the recent stop to the SOPA legislation due to pressure from the outside, the same kind of pressure could of been used to help in Libya..but only if the supporters of that action could sway enough people to support that decision...just like a democracy should. And I don't think hiding behind things like NATO or the US should undermine our Presidents responsibility to us, he works for us first after all. Like in most questions of this nature, there isn't really a right or wrong when the action is taken or not taken in the most strict sense...only what was the most supported.

I think it is a little, in that light, to say that we couldn't declare war on the Libyan government. We are just so used to the President going to war for us, that we have basically abdicated our responsibility in this area. That is one of the major dangers I see in Statism is when you outsource responsibility, you usually don't relegate much thought to it. The plumber fixes my pipes, I don't concern myself with how they work. Likewise, when you place all sorts of powers in agents hands, you tend to concern yourself with the goings ons...till they break. I think a Statism and Libertarianism have the same net effect if the people don't take an active concern in all forms of domestic affairs. I think that Statism might have a higher entropy, though, because it invokes an active outsourcing of all matters of life to agents. While that could work if you are always haggling your agent to make sure he is doing his best, and not up to shenanigans, why not just cut out the middleman and keep up with the basic concern yourself?

I think the idea of the Democracy is starting to fail, not because of some flaw in it that wasn't already widely known, but the culture we find ourselves in. For a Democracy to exist in a healthy way, each citizen has to see his role as a citizen to provide enrichment for the body politic. In this way, the Wests focus on individual rights and Libertarian ethics sorts of causes entropy on this notion. We would much rather be watching a movie, or some other form of playboy recreation, then running down to our local City Council and partake of our duty (not only to others, but ourselves).

I don't mean to ramble, but I wanted to make that point, that it doesn't matter if you are a federalist, or a anti-federalist. If your voting body is poor in intellect, will, and a toxic cultural environment, then no matter of political philosophy will save you. I think Jefferson foresaw that this entropy, and the saying, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." comes from; that things have to get really bad enough for us to actually care about democracy for it to work again for us, and more importantly, us for it.

But more to @bcglorf 's point on genocide, and cowardice. I don't think it is fair to say cowardice when your only course of action is making more widows and orphans. And more importantly, it is an entirely different thing for some president to commit you to that course of action without any "due process", in this case, a declaration of war. I don't think it is cowardice, persay, to not want to kill someone that doesn't want to kill you, and might have a legitimate claim to kill the person they want to kill. But that is neither here nor there, a moral question that most likely will never see commonly, the point is, that each of us should have a voice in the action we collectively have to take, action or inaction. The benefit of defaulting to inaction is that it doesn't stop someone morally convicted like yourself to fund operations of support for whatever side. That is why I usually side with Libertarian answers for complicated issues, sometimes, you don't need one answer for everyone. Sometimes, dare I say most times, it is actually better to let those whom are convicted on the goodness of something to take the risk themselves and not try and hedge everyone in with them.

@dystopianfuturetoday's list seems somewhat biased to me. I also appreciate him taking the time to provide links to his objections, kudos for that.

This is how I would honestly try to answer each of them, I think most can be dismissed, but some should be looked into.

Abortion

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter his personal opinion on abortion, his political opinion is that it's not a Federal issue, it's a state's rights' issue because it's too controversial. So whether people like abortion or not, they have the choice of taking it up with their local governments.

Evolution

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter his personal opinion on evolution. If I were a Christian, I'd have trouble dealing with the theory of evolution too, because I'd believe in a book written by God that says the universe was created in 6 days. I don't see how would that negatively influence him as a president or his policies.

Does not believe in separation of church and state

Sounds like total BS to me. That is just a very biased interpretation of the linked article. Libertarians understand separation of church and state because having them together is even more dangerous than fascism (corporations and state together). It threatens many liberties they hold dear, including free speech, religious freedom, sexual freedom and not using laws to impose morality.

Believes Education is not a right and wants to privatize all schools

Correct, unconstitutional, against libertarian ideals. Even though he'd like to privatize them all, he would have to stop at the Federal level and let states choose whether to run their own schools or privatize.

Wants to repeal the federal law banning guns in school zones

Correct, probably because it would encroach on guns rights, besides, it's in accordance with the point above: Federal government has no business educating children anyway, and should not impose gun restrictions on state-run schools, that's up to the states themselves.

Denies Global Warming, "There is no convincing scientific evidence..."

He does believe that global warming claims are a FUD tactic for environmental regulations at the Federal level.

Wants to get rid of FEMA and says we shouldn’t help people in disasters

Correct about FEMA being dispensable, but "we" means the Federal government. States can help. Private charities can help. Churches can help. Concerned individuals can help. Insurance companies can help.

Wants to build a fence at the US/Mexico Border

Wierd, I mean, it's in accordance with defending our borders, but seems like a costly idea.

Repeatedly has tried to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing Establishment Clause cases or the right to privacy

I don't know what to say about that, sorry.

Pull out of the UN because "they have a secret plan to destroy the US"

He presented more than one reason to pull out of the UN. I personally agree that the UN is not in alignment with american values. I wish the UN all the best in whatever they want to achieve, but I don't think they should do it with the US' money and military, specially since we're broke and fighting too many wars as it is.

Disband NATO

Link is not working. NATO is a remnant of the Cold War era, it costs us money to outsource our military protection to other countries, disbanding NATO makes sense to me.

End birthright citizenship

Sounds like a reasonable position to me. He's in favor of immigrants entering the country, but birthright citizenship is a legal shortcut that is often abused and imposes an unnecessary burden on American citizens and the welfare system.

Deny federal funding to any organisation "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style"

If he had his way, a lot of federal funding to all non-essential organizations would be denied, period. When it comes to the issue of homossexuality, regardless of his personal opinions, he seems to be arguing against using taxpayer money to promote or impose lifestyles taxpayers themselves might not approve of.

Hired former head of Anti Gay Group to be Iowa State Director of the campaign

I don't know, that's a tough one. That might reflect poorly on Ron Paul if this person was hired for being an anti-gay activist. Maybe he's just a good campaign director? I don't think Ron Paul is against homossexuals politically, and he's allowed the same level of homophobia as any other straight christian guy, as long as he doesn't project it into active anti-gay policies.

Wants to abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard

Correct, even though he mostly talks about commodity-based currencies. He doesn't want to impose the gold standard, but allow competing currencies, in which case, I'm sure many people will prefer to use gold as money since it has been historically preferred for millenia.

He was the sole vote against divesting US Gov investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan

I don't understand that sentence and the link is broken, could you elaborate on it, please?

Was also the ONLY vote against a ban on Lead in childrens' toys

Correct, as the linked article points out, he "frequently votes against measures expanding the federal government's reach". It doesn't mean Ron Paul is in favor of lead in children's toys, only that there are other more effective ways to ensure that children's toys don't have lead in them. Leave the Federal government out of this.

Thinks Sexual Harassment shouldn't be illegal

Correct, not at the federal level, that is a states' issue. Whatever else he said on the subject is irrelevant.

Is against the popular vote

Correct, it's a libertarian thing. Libertarians like to protect minorities, namely the smallest and most numerous minority, which is the individual. That's why they always talk about individual rights. Democracy sometimes ignores and tramples over individuals in favor of the majority, so libertarians don't always regard democracy as this unquestionable improvement for civilization.

Wants the estate tax repealed

Correct, it's a useless tax in terms of revenue, most people waste as much money avoiding it than paying it, so it's destroying resources, and its not morally justified. Why would someone have to pay taxes when they die? Why pay taxes to inherit what someone rightfully gives you when they die?

Believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States

Don't know what to say about that. If it was built with US taxpayer money, maybe it should? Idk.

Has associated with the founder of Stormfront, a White Power/Nazi Website

This is bullshit. A picture of them together just implies they conspired to stand in front of a camera.

Keeps their donations
And does nothing to prevent their association with his campaign.

Also, bullshit. Taking their money means he accepts their support, it does not mean that Ron Paul supports them. Like Ron Paul explained many times, it would be impractical to do a background check on all the hundreds of thousands of people who support him and send him money.

Has gone on record that he had no knowledge of the content of the racist newsletters that bore his name AND signature,
But has not only quoted them, but personally defended the newsletters in the past,
And later admitted he WAS aware of the contents and that only "some of [it was] offensive."
...
Ron Paul's Newsletters. Scanned. See the originals for yourself. They're worse than they've been quoted for.

He didn't write it and they already found the guy responsible for the offensive content. Move on.

His issues with race go as far as to vote against the Rosa Parks medal (sole vote, again), saying it is a "waste of taxpayer dollars" and that it was unconsitiutional...
Despite the fact that the bill itself is very clear about a separate fund. All profit from this fund is returned to the Treasury.
However, he had no issues with using taxpayer funds to mint coins for the Boy Scouts
AND introduce legislation that would spend $240 Million making medals for EVERY veteran of the Cold War

Ouch, I don't know what to say, at first it seems inconsistent. Maybe he doesn't have a perfect voting record after all. I'll look into that. I don't buy that he's against Rosa Parks or that there is any race issues involved.

Introduced legislation, twice, that would allow schools to re-segregate.

Endorsing the removal of federal regulations and the freedom that comes with that is not an endorsement of what people or states do with these freedoms.

His SuperPAC is headed by Thomas Woods who is the founder of the League of the South, of which the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) labeled a "racist hate group."

Bullshit, an exageration of guilt by association. Thomas Woods is not the founder, he was present at the founding. He contributed in a limited capacity and is no longer involved with that group. He also publicly admits to being a textbook neoconservative before changing his mind and becoming a Ron Paul supporter. I only expect Ron Paul to be consistent, not everyone who works for him or endorse him, people can change their minds and their ways.

Also in association with the League of the South via Thomas Woods is the Mises Institute, of which Lew Rockwell is an Administrator...

Bullshit, exagerated guilt by an even more distant level of association. The Mises Institute is about austrian economics, most likely they're associated only in regards to their opinions on economics.

Would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Very easy to misinterpret. He's partly against the Civil Rights Act regarding the regulations on private individuals and businesses that are open to the public because they reduce individual liberties. Makes sense for a libertarian to say such things.

Earmarks

I see it as Ron Paul making the most to get money back to the states and local communities using a flawed system.

And during his entire tenure, he has managed only one, out of 620, of his bills to get signed into law.

Can be considered a testament to his innefectiveness, or as a testament to his backbone, and how screwed up Congress and Washington is.

Ron Paul is not a constitutionalist. He is not a civil libertarian. He's a secessionist, a fundamentalist and a confederate.

And the guy who wrote that article is an Anti-Ron Paul nut.

Want more? Go here.

Maybe Slanderpedia.com would be more appropriate, btw I checked and the domain name is available!

It's really not envy. It's people tired of having a small portion of people suck up more and more wealth each year while they themselves can't even get a cost of living raise yearly.

It's been shown time and time again, on the whole the majority of people make less now than they did 20 years ago because they haven't gotten cost of living increases.

They marginalize your job by whatever means they can, and glorify for their positions so much so that not only does their salary not compensate them for DOING THEIR JOB but they also need yearly bonuses that exceed your 10 year income.

And then when times are tough, they continue to take those bonuses and salaries and cut out the jobs that haven't gotten a wage increase in years maybe even decades. Certainly not enough to keep up with inflation 99/100 times.

It's a silly way to operate, but they are backed by both politicians and the major money holders in the nation to enforce this weird dichotomy we have. Where even though they will tell you your job is worthless to the company...it never completely disappears...they just move it as close to poverty as they can and still get someone "satisfactory" in the position. Then move onto the next position and repeat it. After they've made their rounds, then they have to offshore as much as possible to continue the downward spiral that allows them to bring in higher and higher profits and pay out increasing bonuses.

And soon you'll see they have to outsource and offshore to other countries (from the ones they are in now) because people eventually figure out that it's fucking nuts to let these guys put a stranglehold on them like they are. Slowly tightening and tightening until it becomes more sustainable to not work versus the cost of clothing, commute, extended hours, health detriment, etc.

If they didn't have everything locked up for 50-100 years via patents and monopolistic deals, we could have small businesses spring up in our country to compete that might actually force them to pay competitive wages if they want to keep customers by providing quality service and quick repairs. But they continue to run "satisfactory"...and satisfactory standards get lowered each year. People get paid less, less people work there.....they pull in more money per employee by providing less service. And never grow or maintain their operations to stay modern (look specifically at cell phones and ISPs for this), but charge increasingly more each year for less service.

How can you envy that kind of behavior? The money they gain is coming from directly fucking over their employees and customers. The "more successful" ones are just better (more ruthless) at fucking people over.

Neither party wants this kind of behavior to end, that's why none of them actually bring all this bullshit to the forefront and call out specific businesses (especially the TOO BIG outfits) for their behavior. FCC blocking AT&T + T-Mobile merger is what they exist to do, and they are getting slapped on the back for doing it after months and months of information gathering on it, when the layperson on the street could tell you one less provider equals more being fucked as a consumer like they aren't getting fucked enough as is.

I wish they would start revoking the charters of corporations for negligence and malfeasance. They are like parasites feeding on the population at this point, and not mutualists that are good for the human body and in turn the population. And they are parasitic in more than one way, services rendered with their rising costs, and workforce shrinkage with it's decreasing wages and total amount of jobs.

The point is, is that the United States is slowly outsourceing or altogether canceling science related projects. There're just too expensive and to be blunt the average citizen isn't smart enough to realize the benefits we can gain just from a land based telescope. People are lucky if they know what a molecule is.

A good example is research being done into fusion. If the U.S. dropped a lot of money into the already functioning program in Europe we could get the next prototype plant up by 2016-2020. Right now we are providing just an extremely small amount of money on this project, while Europe continues to do it alone. But, it will take much longer without our help. We won't see functioning reactors (which is the solution to our energy demands) until 2060 or thereabouts at this pace.

If the U.S. took a lead role you could see that number go down to 2030, maybe sooner depending on what resources we make available to help. BTW, this is a guaranteed solution, it will work, they know this already. Obama asked for a project that would help America and it's citizens as well as something that would eventually bring work here--this was a huge blunder to me, not to automatically support FUSION especially when all the necessary science has been done. All that is left is building the prototype to fine tune the energy distribution and then designing the first core design for a modern Fusion station.

Things like that let me know that we really don't care about science that much anymore. There are a lot of great people out there, but there simply just could be more. It has everything to do with what scholarship programs we make available, the way we teach and what we teach with, tuition continues to hike up, science is demonized by those that don't understand it--and they in turn affect their children's schooling, the government continues to decrease money to scientific programs across the board--like NASA, and the most damning part is that our politicians decrease education funding as well.

Quality over quantity is a ridiculous argument, it's a political talking point--nothing else. We are losing our focus. I've yet to hear a scientist (and not some Creationist linked bunk crap) ever use that statement, they know we are going down hill.

/A little long, but damnit, I'm passionate about science. It's been the one thing that has constantly picked us up out of the rut.

Capitalism rewards the sociopath who values only his own desires, who fucks over everyone he deals with in the search to squeeze out one more penny of gain. Especially when said sociopath has inherited BILLIONS with which to buy legislators to slant things even more in his favor.

Nobody objected to Sam's Walmart...because he -didn't- fuck over everyone else. The same cannot be said for his kids, who outsource their employees healthcare to the rest of us, for no other purpose than to pocket a few more dollars they have no use for. There was a time when Walmart was proud to feature products "Made in America" (in Sam's day). It didn't take his kids long after he died to start buying from China in order to raise their profit margin by a percent or two. Who cares if it put a few million back into poverty...it was yet another way to increase their "high score" in Forbes.

Fuck them...it's time to bring back the guillotine.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The problem with Ron Paul is that his economic policy contradicts his foreign policy. He wants to further deregulate and cut taxes for the corporations that took us to war in the first place. It's like trying to extinguish a fire with gasoline.


You see contradicts, I see consistency. A position against against war is a position against meddling, same to regulating businesses. And not all corporations profit from war, that is a bold hyperbole. Would an entire internet of do-gooders regulate food imports better than a government agency? Who knows, I for one, would like to see it tried. A failure will precipitate more participation in solution finding then the flawed FDA's and its inadequacies. The same advances that advance all our modern technology are ignored when mired in the miasma of politics. Important things that have no real answers should be left in our hands, 300 million hands make light work of problems, but only if that problem is left for them to solve. The illusion of law and safety is worse than no law at all. I consider myself a caring person, so I don't advocate liberty as an excuse to do harm, but do good in the way and on the things I want to do good on. Outsourcing caring, justice, goodness to other people; to government people I believe is the cause of much of our selfish american culture. And as such, I don't think upping the ante of other people caring for us is the answer. Freedom is harder, its evil more plain and boldfaced. But boldfaced enemies are easier foes than powerful men hiding behind good sounding legislation. Basically, I am against all forms of force, be it forces of good or evil. The only force I believe in is personal force of will, and my ability to convince you without force. It would be evil for me to demand you give your time, money, and energy to habitat for humanity...even though what they do is an arguable good thing. I don't see how the case for any of the other social legislation is any different.


Edit some autocorrect typos

Wow, AC is so bitter. It seems that he's oblivious to the scale of inequity and its exponential growth in recent years. If he would really examine the balance of equality in the "good old days," he would realize that it was much more equitable.

Goods used to be American made and today's globalization has seen manufacturing almost disappear and replaced by outsourcing and child labour. From a purely business standpoint, this makes sense. There is no law against foreign investment, so it's not economical to be patriotic.

And here we are today, with the balance so skewed that it makes sense to pay a few hundred million to buy a senator, republican or a judge. A few years down the road, you'll be paid back by sidestepping that environmental restriction or class-action lawsuit or anything else that might hurt your business.

And if you're an investment banker or bis securities trader, you provide very little to society other than a higher tax rate that you can comfortably afford. But even then, you can weasel your way out of most of that with creative deductions and perfectly legal loopholes. Remember what Warren Buffet said about his cleaning lady? Do you think he was talking out of his ass?

>> ^lantern53:

Outsourcing jobs means Americans pay less for their products.
Would you like a 75% increase in costs of goods you buy? That is what will happen if jobs come back to America.
Unless you'd like the gov't fixing prices, wages, etc.


There would be some increase in the cost of goods we buy if we brought them back in country, and they would be higher at first. I don't think you can say that there would be a sustained 75% increase in costs of the goods we buy after processes are completely moved over and in full production.

The other thing that's crazy is the increasing pay as you travel up the ladder in these companies and the focus they put on profit. Our manufactured goods are moved overseas because they want a 60% profit margin instead of a 30% profit margin. But their profit margins shrink when the other countries demand higher wages and the countries begin to implement environmental laws to be followed. They shrink further when companies in the country setup competing goods and services or completely copy the product they are making and sell it.

It's simply not possible for companies to continue to make 10 and 15% more each quarter/year producing the same and similar products without something giving. Right now it's them hopping to new countries every few years, avoiding taxation through shelters, and other unknown questionable activities.

Cost is not what we are paying for, profit margin is. To me it's very similar to the "cost" we bear because of oil futures and speculation. We pay more because someone somewhere is making a buck on a process they have no hand in at any point. They don't drill it, refine it, transport it, test it, deliver it, retail it, manage it, or anything else to it. They bet on it for profit add no beneficial value to it, and we pay for it. Stockholders, Management, CEO, CIO, COO, etc drive cost to the company down so they increase profit margins not drive down cost to the consumer.

There will always be goods that are best suited to be imported, especially region specific wood, fruit, vegetables, beans, etc. Putting your car or ipad together is done that way because it increases profit margins. It's disingenuous for them to say they do it to lower cost to consumer, it MAY be a byproduct of what they do but it's not the reason they do it...profit is.

I think most people would be happy to pay more for goods and services if they knew it meant better working conditions, higher wages and more jobs. Low prices have played a big part in the destruction of the global economy. Unregulated capitalism is unsustainable. @lantern53 >> ^lantern53:

Outsourcing jobs means Americans pay less for their products.
Would you like a 75% increase in costs of goods you buy? That is what will happen if jobs come back to America.
Unless you'd like the gov't fixing prices, wages, etc.

Outsourcing jobs means Americans pay less for their products.

Would you like a 75% increase in costs of goods you buy? That is what will happen if jobs come back to America.

Unless you'd like the gov't fixing prices, wages, etc.

In the end, it's the predatory "American" corporations that are destroying the country by outsourcing jobs to the lowest global bidder with the laxest environmental and labor regulations.

It really seems like the capitalists of this country aren't going to be satisfied until the middle class is transformed into a locally available source of 3rd world labor.

>> ^Crosswords:

Lobbyists should only be able to make their case during official recorded meetings. None of those dinner, club or trips to a Scottish golf course meetings; including staff working for the politician. Plus former staff members should not be allowed to lobby, ever. Obviously way too much temptation for corruption.


Should the same be had of a citizen writing his congressman? What would the legal difference be between a lobby and a "normal" person. If you try and legislate this, it will only be a matter of time before normal people get caught in the cross-hairs. My solution would be to roll back the responsibility of the government to regulate those things we hold dear and do it ourselves. New technology and know how is making "outsourcing" of major responsibilities no longer necessary. All to often, government officials have no real expertise on the things we want them to look after anyway, how many 60 year old technology minded Senators exist currently or ever? Which understand the intricacies of the biological world of the cell? To great the cost for such ignorant people. Best in our hands, best by our means. The creative solutions of interesting people and communities would be fair more beneficial to all than one monolithic, solution managed by fools. This has problems of its own, but is a far cry from the corruption that an overly legal, federal understanding of life holds for us...ask Russia.

@NetRunner It would be over simplistic for me to say what "the real problem" is, I was pointing out "a" problem I see with certain mindsets. But surely, the people you mention do exist, and to that I mean people who want a certain degree of leeway in those they help. A person who spends a good deal of his time taking care of his body may find it slightly repulsive to pay for the care of someone whom has not taken care of himself, and perhaps rightly so. The shoe exists on the other foot as well, I am not blind to those who very little personal action was taken but very much social/economic/political benefit was reaped. Often have I toyed around with different ways of managing property rights and such to eliminate or make more difficult the position of the freeloading, powerful man.

I don't deny the need of government, nor would I suggest its eradication. My objection was more in line with "how" people are solving the problem of a non-functional government. Forgive me, but having been to several protests now, I find them moronic. It plays out like children jumping on a bed in a stew of anger. Some of Cobert's recent shows on OWS, and before it, the Tea Party stuff made me laugh to tears as I so greatly identified with is complaints. The overall event of a rally is a dogmatic, simplistic, and mostly naive portrayal of the problems, and to rant about even more dogmatic, arbitrary and simplistic solutions. To be forthright, I am an introvert. Large groups of people will, in time, always annoy me, and as such, I admit that perhaps there is something different about a rally that I don't understand. Some kind of comradery in spouting babbling cheers, sitting a public place for no real objective, and making a ruckus. It would seem that most of a rally is about being seen, and I would rather not be. Instead, I would rather be unseen, but actually affecting. It seems more beneficial as a rally only can indirectly change something, where as any other course of direct action has a real effect. For instance, if I were mad about jobs, the last thing I would do is OWS, I would instead seek to create a job fair.

And that was my main point, rallying seems to be the battle cry for those whom want solutions to be created by someone else. Why waste your time and money supporting a rally instead of the cause itself? I used to not have this world view. But, I hold now that spending your energies directly addressing the problem is more beneficial, in large, than trying to bring "awareness" to it. Perhaps I am wrong, though, and some level of awareness is needed just to enact the more hidden, direct changes, hard to say.

The reason I mentioned any of this was because of the position Mr. Moore took up on Obama. He talked about how it was young people that got him elected, that he didn't do the job he was elected to do exactly the way he laid it out, so they became disenfranchised. That was my main concern, and it would seem that those who fall victim to this are the same that think rallying will do anything other than have a rally. As a libertarian minded person, the last thing I am looking to do is give people less of a voice, my aim is almost always entirely the opposite. My objection was that outsourcing your voice to something that is only going to indirectly help you might not be the best course of action. Mad about wall street, fine, but do you still have a 401k? Often times, we are, esoterically, part of the problem and it is that kind of conversation you won't find at a rally. We are always in the right, and we were always wronged by some evil third party...a great children's story, but more often than not, not exactly true.

Sorry for the long rant. More poor command of the egrish usually means I babble on.