Classic Liberalism V.S. Progressivism.

[Bfgrn]

Yes Master. I will submit to re indoctrination Immediately.

My end results in the celebration of Free Will and positive direction.

Your end results in subjugation and equal misery, by the consent of the Empire.

I am not offended by you using your will to conform, to follow, to raise your hand for permission to use the Rest Room.

You however are offended by Free Will, something you cannot understand. Your Religion is not about God, it is about Government, that is why you fear Liberty. You have got to let go of the yearn for Control and Subjugation of Others and Free Yourself. Find Conscience. There is Nothing God can't make Right.

You fail to understand, God first in All things, so in that, You are not yet free. You want to assassinate My character because we cannot come to terms. I cannot submit to your will, you can neither buy it or force it. You cannot accept that before God, He determines what is fair, what is of value, and it is for us to accept, each concerned about Our Own path. Each an example , be it for better or worse.

Everything that questions your will, challenges your perspective, shines a light on your short comings, you seek to villainize, without question.

You are obsessed with Beck. You cannot be Him, you cannot have Him, get over it. I seek to discuss, you seek to destroy what you can't control. Why is that? Why do your kind throw everything under the bus they cannot leash, anything that does not march in lock step? Progressive Fascism? Is that what it really is? Another flavor of Totalitarianism. Run that by Central Control will you? How about picking me up a Coke on the way back? Off to the Dentist.

So, Intense, what I gather from your chants is the the law of the jungle is the only way to be free. Social Darwinism...

Keep this one little detail in mind...what our founding fathers created and is the seminal achievement of their lives was government, not a jungle.

Fail. They created a Government to serve the needs of a Society, not a Society to serve the needs of Government. Government is to establish Justice and serve it, not undermine it for it's own convenience. Principle before what is convenient. If the action is arbitrary, it is false.

Do you support Principle before what is humane and reasonable like the conservatives Harry Hopkins chastised during the Depression Intense?

During the Great Depression conservatives raised the same objections to F.D.R.’s programs. They said the economy must be left alone and it would correct itself in the long run. Commerce Secretary Harry Hopkins shot back: “People don’t eat in the long run. They eat every day.”

 

[Intense]

So, Intense, what I gather from your chants is the the law of the jungle is the only way to be free. Social Darwinism...

Keep this one little detail in mind...what our founding fathers created and is the seminal achievement of their lives was government, not a jungle.

Fail. They created a Government to serve the needs of a Society, not a Society to serve the needs of Government. Government is to establish Justice and serve it, not undermine it for it's own convenience. Principle before what is convenient. If the action is arbitrary, it is false.

Do you support Principle before what is humane and reasonable like the conservatives Harry Hopkins chastised during the Depression Intense?

During the Great Depression conservatives raised the same objections to F.D.R.’s programs. They said the economy must be left alone and it would correct itself in the long run. Commerce Secretary Harry Hopkins shot back: “People don’t eat in the long run. They eat every day.”

Preaching Salvation through Subjugation 101 again?

Good one.

I didn't live through the 1st Depression, only this one. I have mixed feelings about programs designed to help people that burn and plow over crops in the field, on their way to and in the market places. Destroying Inventories of mass goods, Paying Farmers to not grow food. All to artificially inflate the retail price of goods keeping poor people alive, to insure better Salaries for Union Workers and Civil Servants. You ended Share Cropping, you caused, it seems, anyone who was not on your list to lose everything and get thrown under the bus. You did establish Bread Lines for those you disenfranchised. That was mighty decent of you.

Did Roosevelt's plan hurt the poorest more? Did his policies prolong the Depression? Hard questions to answer. did Roosevelt have good ideas? Yes. Did Roosevelt have bad ideas? Yes. What were His priorities, The National Interest or Progressivism. I think he crossed the line.

 

[Bfgrn]

Fail. They created a Government to serve the needs of a Society, not a Society to serve the needs of Government. Government is to establish Justice and serve it, not undermine it for it's own convenience. Principle before what is convenient. If the action is arbitrary, it is false.

Do you support Principle before what is humane and reasonable like the conservatives Harry Hopkins chastised during the Depression Intense?

During the Great Depression conservatives raised the same objections to F.D.R.’s programs. They said the economy must be left alone and it would correct itself in the long run. Commerce Secretary Harry Hopkins shot back: “People don’t eat in the long run. They eat every day.”

Preaching Salvation through Subjugation 101 again?

Good one.

I didn't live through the 1st Depression, only this one. I have mixed feelings about programs designed to help people that burn and plow over crops in the field, on their way to and in the market places. Destroying Inventories of mass goods, Paying Farmers to not grow food. All to artificially inflate the retail price of goods keeping poor people alive, to insure better Salaries for Union Workers and Civil Servants. You ended Share Cropping, you caused, it seems, anyone who was not on your list to lose everything and get thrown under the bus. You did establish Bread Lines for those you disenfranchised. That was mighty decent of you.

Did Roosevelt's plan hurt the poorest more? Did his policies prolong the Depression? Hard questions to answer. did Roosevelt have good ideas? Yes. Did Roosevelt have bad ideas? Yes. What were His priorities, The National Interest or Progressivism. I think he crossed the line.

I am not preaching salvation, I am preaching that a humane government is in the best interests of We, the People. A nation is measured by how the people are doing, not by doctrinaire.

I have been around since Truman was President, so I have witnessed the drastic changes in my country brought about by the conservative era that followed the liberal era that ran from the New Deal through the Great Society. The conservative era has been a disaster for all but the very wealthy. Conservatives have built nothing.

Honestly, I see today's conservatives being no different from communists in Russia...where strict doctrinaire trumps humane government, where ideology has reached the level of insanity. History has proven that a mixed economy outperforms those run on strict doctrinaire, be it communism or Laissez faire.


MYTHS OF THE FREE MARKET - Blind Faith

The gap between rich and poor is now the widest in US history. This is disturbing, for if history is any guide we have unwittingly placed ourselves in grave danger.

Over the last millennium Europe has witnessed long cycles of widening and narrowing economic disparity. In each cycle, once the gap between the rich and the rest widened beyond a certain point, it presaged decline and disaster for all of society, the rich as well as the poor. Could we be seeing the first tremors of a new cycle, the outliers of the next menacing storm? In recent decades, many US citizens have come under increasing financial pressure. Since the 1970s, our number of working poor has increased sharply. Nearly all of our much-vaunted newly-created wealth has gone to the richest.

For a country that has prided itself on its resourcefulness, the inability to address such problems suggests something deeper at work. There is something, powerful but insidious, that blinds us to the causes of these problems and undermines our ability to respond. That something is a set of beliefs, comparable to religious beliefs in earlier ages, about the nature of economies and societies.

These beliefs imply the impropriety of government intervention either in social contexts (libertarianism) or in economic affairs (laissez faire).

The faithful unquestioningly embrace the credo that the doctrine of nonintervention has generated our most venerated institutions: our democracy, the best possible political system; and our free market economy, the best possible economic system. But despite our devotion to the dogmas that libertarianism and free market economics are the foundation of all that we cherish most deeply, they have failed us and are responsible for our present malaise.

The pieties of libertarianism and free markets sound pretty, but they cannot withstand even a cursory inspection. Libertarianism does not support democracy; taken to an extreme, it entails the law of the jungle. If government never interferes, we could all get away with murder. Alternatively, if the libertarian position is not to be taken to an extreme, where should it stop? What is the difference between no government and minimal government? Attempts to justify libertarianism, even a less than extreme position, have failed. Laissez faire, or free market economics, characterized by minimal or no government intervention, has a history that is long but undistinguished. Just as the negative effects of a high fever do not certify the health benefits of the opposite extreme, hypothermia, the dismal failure of communism, seeking complete government control of the economy, does not certify the economic benefits of the opposite extreme, total economic non-intervention.

It may seem odd, given the parabolic arc of our financial markets and the swelling chorus of paeans to free market economics, but despite the important role of the market, purer free market economies have consistently underperformed well-focused mixed economies. In the latter part of the nineteenth century the mixed economies of Meiji Japan and Bismarck’s Germany clearly outperformed the free market economies of Britain and France. Our own economy grew faster when we abandoned the laissez faire of the 1920s and early 1930s for the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. It has become increasingly sluggish as we have moved back to a purer free market. Data of the past few decades show that our GNP and productivity growth have lagged those of our trading partners, who have mixed economies characterized by moderate government intervention.

 

[flacaltenn]

Bfgrn:::

So, Intense, what I gather from your chants is the the law of the jungle is the only way to be free. Social Darwinism...

Keep this one little detail in mind...what our founding fathers created and is the seminal achievement of their lives was government, not a jungle.

Nice rhetoric.. Grab your "law of the Jungle" protest sign and head for Wall St..

In reality tho.. Starbucks is NOT stalking you for dinner. Home Depot is not undermining your attempts to fix your home. And Hooters is not plotting to poison your dinner or stiff you on the wings.

WE are defending Capitalism because we know that the NATURAL restrainsts on unmitigated mayhem are stronger and more durable than measly selectively enforced govt regulation. When the Massey coal mine killed a dozen or more workers it had been closed 14 times by regulators who CONTINUED to let them operate. Did those regulators ever get punished? No.. Did the Govt regulators who wrote waivers to the deep water operations on that BP rig ever get punished? No...

But everyday -- business is restrained thru NATURAL Capitalist mechanisms.. Like for instance..

1) Customer perception and satisfaction.

2) Stakeholders who excercize control, like stock/bond holders, banks, Boards.

3) Criminal liability law.

4) Competition.

5) Contract law..

I shouldn't have to explain to you how EACH AND EVERY ONE of these items precludes your "jungle" scenario.. But EACH one has a powerful moderating influence on business behaviour. And when companies IGNORE these restrainsts --- they SHOULD be punished by the system itself without the neccessity for politicians to grandstand and claim credit.

So if you can give a short list of the awful corporate predators that are stalking you right now -- maybe we can get save your sorry ass before you become a snack...

 

[Intense]

Do you support Principle before what is humane and reasonable like the conservatives Harry Hopkins chastised during the Depression Intense?

During the Great Depression conservatives raised the same objections to F.D.R.’s programs. They said the economy must be left alone and it would correct itself in the long run. Commerce Secretary Harry Hopkins shot back: “People don’t eat in the long run. They eat every day.”

Preaching Salvation through Subjugation 101 again?

Good one.

I didn't live through the 1st Depression, only this one. I have mixed feelings about programs designed to help people that burn and plow over crops in the field, on their way to and in the market places. Destroying Inventories of mass goods, Paying Farmers to not grow food. All to artificially inflate the retail price of goods keeping poor people alive, to insure better Salaries for Union Workers and Civil Servants. You ended Share Cropping, you caused, it seems, anyone who was not on your list to lose everything and get thrown under the bus. You did establish Bread Lines for those you disenfranchised. That was mighty decent of you.

Did Roosevelt's plan hurt the poorest more? Did his policies prolong the Depression? Hard questions to answer. did Roosevelt have good ideas? Yes. Did Roosevelt have bad ideas? Yes. What were His priorities, The National Interest or Progressivism. I think he crossed the line.

I am not preaching salvation, I am preaching that a humane government is in the best interests of We, the People. A nation is measured by how the people are doing, not by doctrinaire.

I have been around since Truman was President, so I have witnessed the drastic changes in my country brought about by the conservative era that followed the liberal era that ran from the New Deal through the Great Society. The conservative era has been a disaster for all but the very wealthy. Conservatives have built nothing.

Honestly, I see today's conservatives being no different from communists in Russia...where strict doctrinaire trumps humane government, where ideology has reached the level of insanity. History has proven that a mixed economy outperforms those run on strict doctrinaire, be it communism or Laissez faire.


MYTHS OF THE FREE MARKET - Blind Faith

The gap between rich and poor is now the widest in US history. This is disturbing, for if history is any guide we have unwittingly placed ourselves in grave danger.

Over the last millennium Europe has witnessed long cycles of widening and narrowing economic disparity. In each cycle, once the gap between the rich and the rest widened beyond a certain point, it presaged decline and disaster for all of society, the rich as well as the poor. Could we be seeing the first tremors of a new cycle, the outliers of the next menacing storm? In recent decades, many US citizens have come under increasing financial pressure. Since the 1970s, our number of working poor has increased sharply. Nearly all of our much-vaunted newly-created wealth has gone to the richest.

For a country that has prided itself on its resourcefulness, the inability to address such problems suggests something deeper at work. There is something, powerful but insidious, that blinds us to the causes of these problems and undermines our ability to respond. That something is a set of beliefs, comparable to religious beliefs in earlier ages, about the nature of economies and societies.

These beliefs imply the impropriety of government intervention either in social contexts (libertarianism) or in economic affairs (laissez faire).

The faithful unquestioningly embrace the credo that the doctrine of nonintervention has generated our most venerated institutions: our democracy, the best possible political system; and our free market economy, the best possible economic system. But despite our devotion to the dogmas that libertarianism and free market economics are the foundation of all that we cherish most deeply, they have failed us and are responsible for our present malaise.

The pieties of libertarianism and free markets sound pretty, but they cannot withstand even a cursory inspection. Libertarianism does not support democracy; taken to an extreme, it entails the law of the jungle. If government never interferes, we could all get away with murder. Alternatively, if the libertarian position is not to be taken to an extreme, where should it stop? What is the difference between no government and minimal government? Attempts to justify libertarianism, even a less than extreme position, have failed. Laissez faire, or free market economics, characterized by minimal or no government intervention, has a history that is long but undistinguished. Just as the negative effects of a high fever do not certify the health benefits of the opposite extreme, hypothermia, the dismal failure of communism, seeking complete government control of the economy, does not certify the economic benefits of the opposite extreme, total economic non-intervention.

It may seem odd, given the parabolic arc of our financial markets and the swelling chorus of paeans to free market economics, but despite the important role of the market, purer free market economies have consistently underperformed well-focused mixed economies. In the latter part of the nineteenth century the mixed economies of Meiji Japan and Bismarck’s Germany clearly outperformed the free market economies of Britain and France. Our own economy grew faster when we abandoned the laissez faire of the 1920s and early 1930s for the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. It has become increasingly sluggish as we have moved back to a purer free market. Data of the past few decades show that our GNP and productivity growth have lagged those of our trading partners, who have mixed economies characterized by moderate government intervention.

I am not preaching salvation, I am preaching that a humane government is in the best interests of We, the People. A nation is measured by how the people are doing, not by doctrinaire.

You are Preaching against Representative Government. You are Preaching for Keepers, not Representatives. Your Doctrine is very Real, it is Progressivism.

I have been around since Truman was President, so I have witnessed the drastic changes in my country brought about by the conservative era that followed the liberal era that ran from the New Deal through the Great Society. The conservative era has been a disaster for all but the very wealthy. Conservatives have built nothing.

Maybe you should learn to stand on your own, try being more Independent, more Self Reliant. Stop following Angry Mobs. Your views are too one sided, that should tell you something.

Honestly, I see today's conservatives being no different from communists in Russia...where strict doctrinaire trumps humane government, where ideology has reached the level of insanity. History has proven that a mixed economy outperforms those run on strict doctrinaire, be it communism or Laissez faire.

Nonsense. You glean from History what serves your end. In any system, there is no substitute for "Value for Value". You strain the system with unexpected burdens and it fails and you blame the system, rather than the abuse and misuse of it. Go ahead, make something work that can stand on it's own and generate wealth. Try it. I dare you. There is no reason why Government Programs can't pay for themselves, "Value for Value". Hint, find a formula that works before dumping Billions into it.

The gap between rich and poor is now the widest in US history. This is disturbing, for if history is any guide we have unwittingly placed ourselves in grave danger.

Your Tax Law is utter Garbage. Start there. Where do you think Monopolies come from. Justify Each One individually, or end them. Stop with Arbitrary Privilege, and Exemption. Start with Google, MSN, and Apple. My surrendering my will to you is more disturbing than your mismanagement.

Over the last millennium Europe has witnessed long cycles of widening and narrowing economic disparity. In each cycle, once the gap between the rich and the rest widened beyond a certain point, it presaged decline and disaster for all of society, the rich as well as the poor. Could we be seeing the first tremors of a new cycle, the outliers of the next menacing storm? In recent decades, many US citizens have come under increasing financial pressure. Since the 1970s, our number of working poor has increased sharply. Nearly all of our much-vaunted newly-created wealth has gone to the richest.

Who is to say that the Federal Reserve is not directly responsible for inflationary cycles? Maybe it should learn to live within it's means. A single transparent set of books would be a nice change of direction. Double dipping of State and Federal Workers seems to be a bit too popular. Maybe they should just stay home and buy Lottery Tickets for fun, or not receive Pensions while they are still working.

For a country that has prided itself on its resourcefulness, the inability to address such problems suggests something deeper at work. There is something, powerful but insidious, that blinds us to the causes of these problems and undermines our ability to respond. That something is a set of beliefs, comparable to religious beliefs in earlier ages, about the nature of economies and societies.

To me it suggests Government Manipulation, and Obstruction. Keep passing Laws that Inhibit, while Proclaiming You are doing All You Can. Who's controlling Oil, Gas, Power? Good one.

These beliefs imply the impropriety of government intervention either in social contexts (libertarianism) or in economic affairs (laissez faire).

No Shit.

The faithful unquestioningly embrace the credo that the doctrine of nonintervention has generated our most venerated institutions: our democracy, the best possible political system; and our free market economy, the best possible economic system. But despite our devotion to the dogmas that libertarianism and free market economics are the foundation of all that we cherish most deeply, they have failed us and are responsible for our present malaise.

The Fair Referee does not decide what team wins before or during the game. There is no predetermined outcome. It is not for the Referee to even decide which Team may deserve to Win, or which Team He should feel sorry for, and bend the rules to even things. It is for the Referee to keep the Integrity of the Game, to keep Play Fair. Fair is not Equal Outcome! Fair is not corrupting the process with your Bias, regardless of the intention. Fair is Keeping the Faith and letting the chips fall where they may.

The pieties of libertarianism and free markets sound pretty, but they cannot withstand even a cursory inspection. Libertarianism does not support democracy; taken to an extreme, it entails the law of the jungle. If government never interferes, we could all get away with murder. Alternatively, if the libertarian position is not to be taken to an extreme, where should it stop? What is the difference between no government and minimal government? Attempts to justify libertarianism, even a less than extreme position, have failed. Laissez faire, or free market economics, characterized by minimal or no government intervention, has a history that is long but undistinguished. Just as the negative effects of a high fever do not certify the health benefits of the opposite extreme, hypothermia, the dismal failure of communism, seeking complete government control of the economy, does not certify the economic benefits of the opposite extreme, total economic non-intervention.

We are not a Democracy. We are a Republic, a Constitutional Republic. We are a Nation of Laws, with means to Establish, Address, Question, and Amend, those Laws, through Reason and Due Process by the Consent of the Governed. Only through a Willing Blindness would one compare Federalism and Free Market Principles to a rudderless Vessel at sea. The notion is absurd.

It may seem odd, given the parabolic arc of our financial markets and the swelling chorus of paeans to free market economics, but despite the important role of the market, purer free market economies have consistently underperformed well-focused mixed economies. In the latter part of the nineteenth century the mixed economies of Meiji Japan and Bismarck’s Germany clearly outperformed the free market economies of Britain and France. Our own economy grew faster when we abandoned the laissez faire of the 1920s and early 1930s for the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. It has become increasingly sluggish as we have moved back to a purer free market. Data of the past few decades show that our GNP and productivity growth have lagged those of our trading partners, who have mixed economies characterized by moderate government intervention.

Lose the Monopolies. Open Competition. Every time, every way you manipulate the Market, the Sharks get rich swimming circles around you. Get a clue.

 

[Bfgrn]

Bfgrn:::

So, Intense, what I gather from your chants is the the law of the jungle is the only way to be free. Social Darwinism...

Keep this one little detail in mind...what our founding fathers created and is the seminal achievement of their lives was government, not a jungle.

Nice rhetoric.. Grab your "law of the Jungle" protest sign and head for Wall St..

In reality tho.. Starbucks is NOT stalking you for dinner. Home Depot is not undermining your attempts to fix your home. And Hooters is not plotting to poison your dinner or stiff you on the wings.

WE are defending Capitalism because we know that the NATURAL restrainsts on unmitigated mayhem are stronger and more durable than measly selectively enforced govt regulation. When the Massey coal mine killed a dozen or more workers it had been closed 14 times by regulators who CONTINUED to let them operate. Did those regulators ever get punished? No.. Did the Govt regulators who wrote waivers to the deep water operations on that BP rig ever get punished? No...

But everyday -- business is restrained thru NATURAL Capitalist mechanisms.. Like for instance..

1) Customer perception and satisfaction.

2) Stakeholders who excercize control, like stock/bond holders, banks, Boards.

3) Criminal liability law.

4) Competition.

5) Contract law..

I shouldn't have to explain to you how EACH AND EVERY ONE of these items precludes your "jungle" scenario.. But EACH one has a powerful moderating influence on business behaviour. And when companies IGNORE these restrainsts --- they SHOULD be punished by the system itself without the neccessity for politicians to grandstand and claim credit.

So if you can give a short list of the awful corporate predators that are stalking you right now -- maybe we can get save your sorry ass before you become a snack...

I am all for the free market in most areas, just not all. A mixed economy not only makes sense, it outperforms strict doctrinaire.

Health care is a perfect example where the free market model can never work.

The whole basis of a 'free market' is the buyer has leverage, i.e. he/she can take his/her business elsewhere. That works perfectly fine when the stakes are things (cars or TV sets etc). But a person's health is not a 'thing', and the consumer's stake is their very life. An unhappy consumer can go buys a different car or TV. If a person has a life threatening illness and is denied coverage for treatment, WHAT leverage does that person have...take their business elsewhere IN ANOTHER LIFE?

 

[Intense]

Yep The Thousand Dollar Government regulated band-aid sure feels better than that 50 cent one, you can just tell by looking at it how great it is. Sign me up.

 

[bripat9643]

Do you support Principle before what is humane and reasonable like the conservatives Harry Hopkins chastised during the Depression Intense?

During the Great Depression conservatives raised the same objections to F.D.R.’s programs. They said the economy must be left alone and it would correct itself in the long run. Commerce Secretary Harry Hopkins shot back: “People don’t eat in the long run. They eat every day.”

What is "humane and resonable" about robbing people?

How does your misfortune justify inflicting misfortune on me?

 

[Oddball]

So, Intense, what I gather from your chants is the the law of the jungle is the only way to be free. Social Darwinism...

Keep this one little detail in mind...what our founding fathers created and is the seminal achievement of their lives was government, not a jungle.

Way to ignore the substance of the entire conversation in favor of invoking the tired old "ANARCHIST!" strawman.

And you wonder why people like me don't take your manic brain droppings seriously?

How ironic. You are only capable of blurting out syllables and half sentences in Dudebonics.

Not even a good attempt at deflecting from your reducto-ad-anarchist ad homenim bail out, Gomer....Yet another reason to not take any of your drivel seriously.

 

[flacaltenn]

Bfgrn:::

So, Intense, what I gather from your chants is the the law of the jungle is the only way to be free. Social Darwinism...

Keep this one little detail in mind...what our founding fathers created and is the seminal achievement of their lives was government, not a jungle.

Nice rhetoric.. Grab your "law of the Jungle" protest sign and head for Wall St..

In reality tho.. Starbucks is NOT stalking you for dinner. Home Depot is not undermining your attempts to fix your home. And Hooters is not plotting to poison your dinner or stiff you on the wings.

WE are defending Capitalism because we know that the NATURAL restrainsts on unmitigated mayhem are stronger and more durable than measly selectively enforced govt regulation. When the Massey coal mine killed a dozen or more workers it had been closed 14 times by regulators who CONTINUED to let them operate. Did those regulators ever get punished? No.. Did the Govt regulators who wrote waivers to the deep water operations on that BP rig ever get punished? No...

But everyday -- business is restrained thru NATURAL Capitalist mechanisms.. Like for instance..

1) Customer perception and satisfaction.

2) Stakeholders who excercize control, like stock/bond holders, banks, Boards.

3) Criminal liability law.

4) Competition.

5) Contract law..

I shouldn't have to explain to you how EACH AND EVERY ONE of these items precludes your "jungle" scenario.. But EACH one has a powerful moderating influence on business behaviour. And when companies IGNORE these restrainsts --- they SHOULD be punished by the system itself without the neccessity for politicians to grandstand and claim credit.

So if you can give a short list of the awful corporate predators that are stalking you right now -- maybe we can get save your sorry ass before you become a snack...

I am all for the free market in most areas, just not all. A mixed economy not only makes sense, it outperforms strict doctrinaire.

Health care is a perfect example where the free market model can never work.

The whole basis of a 'free market' is the buyer has leverage, i.e. he/she can take his/her business elsewhere. That works perfectly fine when the stakes are things (cars or TV sets etc). But a person's health is not a 'thing', and the consumer's stake is their very life. An unhappy consumer can go buys a different car or TV. If a person has a life threatening illness and is denied coverage for treatment, WHAT leverage does that person have...take their business elsewhere IN ANOTHER LIFE?

I really don't see a lot of diff between you and some of your HONEST comrades on the board. At least they come out and DICTATE a $20Mill cap on wealth is where the punchline is. You've got this unfounded HARD-ON for the great times of FDR. Where your hero could appoint a committee to approve the script word for word of EVERY Hollywood movie that got made. Even determine WHICH movies would be made. A wonderfully romantic time when the GOvt could dislocate thousands of workers to labor in conditions that even the Chinese civil rights folks today would be up in arms about.

As far as healthcare being special -- it's really not. Cosmetic surgery is a burgeoning business speciality. Largely unphased by govt intervention in pricing and regulation. There is no "cosmetic medicine" crisis. There is no Dentistry crisis. There is not even a Veterinary Medicine crisis. The crisis is mostly contained to the warped effect of having govt control pricing and procedures for general medicine. And YES having medical service CARE about competition and pricing is missing KEY LINK to any socialist concepts of healthcare. I TRY to ask my providers about pricing.. They look at me like I need a straightjacket. MOST doctors will tell me they have NO IDEA of what the costs will be. I do this because I keep a high deductible plan and I can CHOOSE to limit my own costs. I never get funny looks at the Dentist when I ask those questions. I get a detailed estimate. We have WARPED the markets beyond free market principles by asking doctors, hospitals, labs to take such high losses on their GOVT paid patients. And by placing so many levels of disconnect between the customer and provider.

As far as your child-like belief in the excellence and effectiveness of govt regulation -- I guess you don't realize that Congress hasn't written a REAL LAW in over 2 decades. Most bills are empty shells (Clean Air, Dodd-Frank, ect) where NO ONE knows when they are signed into law what the regulations will actually be. Then you have an unaccountable HORDE of bureaucrats -- who never get punished set free to fill in the details. They get pummeled in political battles, are directed by cronies who get their jobs thru political patronage, and NEVER face a budget decrease. Yet -- when regulators FAIL more often they SUCCEED in actually catching the free market with their pants down -- you and your Conservative counterparts just blame each other and the lack of funding..

WAAAAY too much faith in govt as the "equalizing and punitive force" for free markets. In fact -- you ignore the awful dichotomy in their mission. The Dept of Ag is there to PROMOTE American agriculture -- you think it's there to punish it and act as sheriff. Same with the FAA and EVERY OTHER Federal agency.. THey have to play both sides. You can't write energy policy without cavorting with the energy providers. Leftists mistakenly think this is possible. But without knowing proprietary information and bedding each other intimately -- any policy would be STUPID policy. Who the hell do you THINK is gonna write energy policy -- The Sierra Club?

You need to check your misconceptions about the role of govt and your fantasy about FDR every so often.. The romance you have is not based in reality...

 

[Bfgrn]

Bfgrn:::



Nice rhetoric.. Grab your "law of the Jungle" protest sign and head for Wall St..

In reality tho.. Starbucks is NOT stalking you for dinner. Home Depot is not undermining your attempts to fix your home. And Hooters is not plotting to poison your dinner or stiff you on the wings.

WE are defending Capitalism because we know that the NATURAL restrainsts on unmitigated mayhem are stronger and more durable than measly selectively enforced govt regulation. When the Massey coal mine killed a dozen or more workers it had been closed 14 times by regulators who CONTINUED to let them operate. Did those regulators ever get punished? No.. Did the Govt regulators who wrote waivers to the deep water operations on that BP rig ever get punished? No...

But everyday -- business is restrained thru NATURAL Capitalist mechanisms.. Like for instance..

1) Customer perception and satisfaction.

2) Stakeholders who excercize control, like stock/bond holders, banks, Boards.

3) Criminal liability law.

4) Competition.

5) Contract law..

I shouldn't have to explain to you how EACH AND EVERY ONE of these items precludes your "jungle" scenario.. But EACH one has a powerful moderating influence on business behaviour. And when companies IGNORE these restrainsts --- they SHOULD be punished by the system itself without the neccessity for politicians to grandstand and claim credit.

So if you can give a short list of the awful corporate predators that are stalking you right now -- maybe we can get save your sorry ass before you become a snack...

I am all for the free market in most areas, just not all. A mixed economy not only makes sense, it outperforms strict doctrinaire.

Health care is a perfect example where the free market model can never work.

The whole basis of a 'free market' is the buyer has leverage, i.e. he/she can take his/her business elsewhere. That works perfectly fine when the stakes are things (cars or TV sets etc). But a person's health is not a 'thing', and the consumer's stake is their very life. An unhappy consumer can go buys a different car or TV. If a person has a life threatening illness and is denied coverage for treatment, WHAT leverage does that person have...take their business elsewhere IN ANOTHER LIFE?

I really don't see a lot of diff between you and some of your HONEST comrades on the board. At least they come out and DICTATE a $20Mill cap on wealth is where the punchline is. You've got this unfounded HARD-ON for the great times of FDR. Where your hero could appoint a committee to approve the script word for word of EVERY Hollywood movie that got made. Even determine WHICH movies would be made. A wonderfully romantic time when the GOvt could dislocate thousands of workers to labor in conditions that even the Chinese civil rights folks today would be up in arms about.

As far as healthcare being special -- it's really not. Cosmetic surgery is a burgeoning business speciality. Largely unphased by govt intervention in pricing and regulation. There is no "cosmetic medicine" crisis. There is no Dentistry crisis. There is not even a Veterinary Medicine crisis. The crisis is mostly contained to the warped effect of having govt control pricing and procedures for general medicine. And YES having medical service CARE about competition and pricing is missing KEY LINK to any socialist concepts of healthcare. I TRY to ask my providers about pricing.. They look at me like I need a straightjacket. MOST doctors will tell me they have NO IDEA of what the costs will be. I do this because I keep a high deductible plan and I can CHOOSE to limit my own costs. I never get funny looks at the Dentist when I ask those questions. I get a detailed estimate. We have WARPED the markets beyond free market principles by asking doctors, hospitals, labs to take such high losses on their GOVT paid patients. And by placing so many levels of disconnect between the customer and provider.

As far as your child-like belief in the excellence and effectiveness of govt regulation -- I guess you don't realize that Congress hasn't written a REAL LAW in over 2 decades. Most bills are empty shells (Clean Air, Dodd-Frank, ect) where NO ONE knows when they are signed into law what the regulations will actually be. Then you have an unaccountable HORDE of bureaucrats -- who never get punished set free to fill in the details. They get pummeled in political battles, are directed by cronies who get their jobs thru political patronage, and NEVER face a budget decrease. Yet -- when regulators FAIL more often they SUCCEED in actually catching the free market with their pants down -- you and your Conservative counterparts just blame each other and the lack of funding..

WAAAAY too much faith in govt as the "equalizing and punitive force" for free markets. In fact -- you ignore the awful dichotomy in their mission. The Dept of Ag is there to PROMOTE American agriculture -- you think it's there to punish it and act as sheriff. Same with the FAA and EVERY OTHER Federal agency.. THey have to play both sides. You can't write energy policy without cavorting with the energy providers. Leftists mistakenly think this is possible. But without knowing proprietary information and bedding each other intimately -- any policy would be STUPID policy. Who the hell do you THINK is gonna write energy policy -- The Sierra Club?

You need to check your misconceptions about the role of govt and your fantasy about FDR every so often.. The romance you have is not based in reality...

Ironic, Oddball/Dude accuses me of ANARCHIST!" strawman, but THAT is what you and Intense are PROMOTING...

All your rant proves is the dangers of a corporatocracy and a plutocracy. Something that the conservative era has re-created. Regulatory capture is not regulation; it is wealth capturing the power to crush We, the People.

What is the remedy? The wealth disparity and human conditions today mirror the Gilded age. We need a new progressive movement that will lead to a second 'New Deal'.

You can emote all you want, but the PROOF is not on your side.

When you understand what conservatism is, every argument they make leads to the same end.

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

When you understand this and view their words, ask the question; will this lead to some form of an aristocracy?

The answer is always YES...


Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral

 

[Intense]

I am all for the free market in most areas, just not all. A mixed economy not only makes sense, it outperforms strict doctrinaire.

Health care is a perfect example where the free market model can never work.

The whole basis of a 'free market' is the buyer has leverage, i.e. he/she can take his/her business elsewhere. That works perfectly fine when the stakes are things (cars or TV sets etc). But a person's health is not a 'thing', and the consumer's stake is their very life. An unhappy consumer can go buys a different car or TV. If a person has a life threatening illness and is denied coverage for treatment, WHAT leverage does that person have...take their business elsewhere IN ANOTHER LIFE?

I really don't see a lot of diff between you and some of your HONEST comrades on the board. At least they come out and DICTATE a $20Mill cap on wealth is where the punchline is. You've got this unfounded HARD-ON for the great times of FDR. Where your hero could appoint a committee to approve the script word for word of EVERY Hollywood movie that got made. Even determine WHICH movies would be made. A wonderfully romantic time when the GOvt could dislocate thousands of workers to labor in conditions that even the Chinese civil rights folks today would be up in arms about.

As far as healthcare being special -- it's really not. Cosmetic surgery is a burgeoning business speciality. Largely unphased by govt intervention in pricing and regulation. There is no "cosmetic medicine" crisis. There is no Dentistry crisis. There is not even a Veterinary Medicine crisis. The crisis is mostly contained to the warped effect of having govt control pricing and procedures for general medicine. And YES having medical service CARE about competition and pricing is missing KEY LINK to any socialist concepts of healthcare. I TRY to ask my providers about pricing.. They look at me like I need a straightjacket. MOST doctors will tell me they have NO IDEA of what the costs will be. I do this because I keep a high deductible plan and I can CHOOSE to limit my own costs. I never get funny looks at the Dentist when I ask those questions. I get a detailed estimate. We have WARPED the markets beyond free market principles by asking doctors, hospitals, labs to take such high losses on their GOVT paid patients. And by placing so many levels of disconnect between the customer and provider.

As far as your child-like belief in the excellence and effectiveness of govt regulation -- I guess you don't realize that Congress hasn't written a REAL LAW in over 2 decades. Most bills are empty shells (Clean Air, Dodd-Frank, ect) where NO ONE knows when they are signed into law what the regulations will actually be. Then you have an unaccountable HORDE of bureaucrats -- who never get punished set free to fill in the details. They get pummeled in political battles, are directed by cronies who get their jobs thru political patronage, and NEVER face a budget decrease. Yet -- when regulators FAIL more often they SUCCEED in actually catching the free market with their pants down -- you and your Conservative counterparts just blame each other and the lack of funding..

WAAAAY too much faith in govt as the "equalizing and punitive force" for free markets. In fact -- you ignore the awful dichotomy in their mission. The Dept of Ag is there to PROMOTE American agriculture -- you think it's there to punish it and act as sheriff. Same with the FAA and EVERY OTHER Federal agency.. THey have to play both sides. You can't write energy policy without cavorting with the energy providers. Leftists mistakenly think this is possible. But without knowing proprietary information and bedding each other intimately -- any policy would be STUPID policy. Who the hell do you THINK is gonna write energy policy -- The Sierra Club?

You need to check your misconceptions about the role of govt and your fantasy about FDR every so often.. The romance you have is not based in reality...

Ironic, Oddball/Dude accuses me of ANARCHIST!" strawman, but THAT is what you and Intense are PROMOTING...

All your rant proves is the dangers of a corporatocracy and a plutocracy. Something that the conservative era has re-created. Regulatory capture is not regulation; it is wealth capturing the power to crush We, the People.

What is the remedy? The wealth disparity and human conditions today mirror the Gilded age. We need a new progressive movement that will lead to a second 'New Deal'.

You can emote all you want, but the PROOF is not on your side.

When you understand what conservatism is, every argument they make leads to the same end.

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

When you understand this and view their words, ask the question; will this lead to some form of an aristocracy?

The answer is always YES...


Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral

Ironic, Oddball/Dude accuses me of ANARCHIST!" strawman, but THAT is what you and Intense are PROMOTING...

Actually no. Anarchy is not the answer. Anarchists make lousy roommates too. Take it from me. The first rule is there are no rules. What you cannot hold on to, by force if necessary is history. You can forget labeling anything you put in the fridge too, unless you mean it as a joke. I learned many years ago, wherever You bring Yourself, you bring your baggage. Best to work through those life lessons soberly and with integrity. Put that in your Peyote Pipe and smoke it. Remember to walk towards the Light.

All your rant proves is the dangers of a corporatocracy and a plutocracy. Something that the conservative era has re-created. Regulatory capture is not regulation; it is wealth capturing the power to crush We, the People.

Who is empowering these big Corporations with special Privilege? Government. Who taxes at every level of production and distribution? Government.
Recreated? It never went away.

What is the remedy? The wealth disparity and human conditions today mirror the Gilded age. We need a new progressive movement that will lead to a second 'New Deal'.

You obviously think that you have not obstructed or spent enough. When Going off in a wrong direction, picking up speed compounds the problem, accelerates the decline. Why not instead, try teaching your wards marketable skills? I dare you. Maybe you can teach them to do your job?

When you understand what conservatism is, every argument they make leads to the same end.

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

To Me, speaking as a part Conservative, part Libertarian, part Classic Liberal, Conservatism is not wasting, not scheming, not misrepresenting. We follow "Constructive Liberty", not tearing down what works, but adapting it to need, through consent and Due Process. We try to follow the Rule of Law, both when it is convenient, and when it is not. That is also true of Enforcing it, when it is our Job. Your answer is absurd. Who do you think is pulling the Progressive Strings of Fascism. Follow the money. Your Progressivism is not true, it is a mask for the Power Grab. You seek to transform the Society into one Subject to your own Arbitrary Indulgences, it doesn't matter what the flavor of the week is, as long as the Society jumps when you tell it to.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

Sounds like he smoked allot of weed. Weed does make you Paranoid, sometimes. Trust God, Love Each Other.

 

[Bern80]

"from a government permanently dedicated to securing individual liberty"

Is that all our goverment was designed to do?

I didn't know that.

Why did they even bother then?

George III had all the personal liberty one could ask for.

Why didn't they duplicate THAT kind of government?

Oh wait, you mean everybody's personal liberty>

Well that a whole 'nother thing isn't it?

Yes the goal of our government is to insure everybody's personal liberty.

No wait...that doesn't make sense....does it?

If everybody had personal liberty how does that work, exactly?

I think I'm not exactly sure I know what the professor actually means.

Doesn't one's personal liberty rub up against everybody else personal liberty?

How does all this personal liberty work, exactly?

Who arbitrates where my personal liberty ends and everybody else's begins?

When my personal liberty infringes on your personal liberty, who wins?

How does it work that people like you can't see that ensuring everyone's personal liberty is not some type of contradiction? You libs always make things more complicated than they are.

 

[Intense]

"from a government permanently dedicated to securing individual liberty"

Is that all our goverment was designed to do?

I didn't know that.

Why did they even bother then?

George III had all the personal liberty one could ask for.

Why didn't they duplicate THAT kind of government?

Oh wait, you mean everybody's personal liberty>

Well that a whole 'nother thing isn't it?

Yes the goal of our government is to insure everybody's personal liberty.

No wait...that doesn't make sense....does it?

If everybody had personal liberty how does that work, exactly?

I think I'm not exactly sure I know what the professor actually means.

Doesn't one's personal liberty rub up against everybody else personal liberty?

How does all this personal liberty work, exactly?

Who arbitrates where my personal liberty ends and everybody else's begins?

When my personal liberty infringes on your personal liberty, who wins?

How does it work that people like you can't see that ensuring everyone's personal liberty is not some type of contradiction? You libs always make things more complicated than they are.

They have to hide what is, in order to take control and redirect.

 

[Bfgrn]

I really don't see a lot of diff between you and some of your HONEST comrades on the board. At least they come out and DICTATE a $20Mill cap on wealth is where the punchline is. You've got this unfounded HARD-ON for the great times of FDR. Where your hero could appoint a committee to approve the script word for word of EVERY Hollywood movie that got made. Even determine WHICH movies would be made. A wonderfully romantic time when the GOvt could dislocate thousands of workers to labor in conditions that even the Chinese civil rights folks today would be up in arms about.

As far as healthcare being special -- it's really not. Cosmetic surgery is a burgeoning business speciality. Largely unphased by govt intervention in pricing and regulation. There is no "cosmetic medicine" crisis. There is no Dentistry crisis. There is not even a Veterinary Medicine crisis. The crisis is mostly contained to the warped effect of having govt control pricing and procedures for general medicine. And YES having medical service CARE about competition and pricing is missing KEY LINK to any socialist concepts of healthcare. I TRY to ask my providers about pricing.. They look at me like I need a straightjacket. MOST doctors will tell me they have NO IDEA of what the costs will be. I do this because I keep a high deductible plan and I can CHOOSE to limit my own costs. I never get funny looks at the Dentist when I ask those questions. I get a detailed estimate. We have WARPED the markets beyond free market principles by asking doctors, hospitals, labs to take such high losses on their GOVT paid patients. And by placing so many levels of disconnect between the customer and provider.

As far as your child-like belief in the excellence and effectiveness of govt regulation -- I guess you don't realize that Congress hasn't written a REAL LAW in over 2 decades. Most bills are empty shells (Clean Air, Dodd-Frank, ect) where NO ONE knows when they are signed into law what the regulations will actually be. Then you have an unaccountable HORDE of bureaucrats -- who never get punished set free to fill in the details. They get pummeled in political battles, are directed by cronies who get their jobs thru political patronage, and NEVER face a budget decrease. Yet -- when regulators FAIL more often they SUCCEED in actually catching the free market with their pants down -- you and your Conservative counterparts just blame each other and the lack of funding..

WAAAAY too much faith in govt as the "equalizing and punitive force" for free markets. In fact -- you ignore the awful dichotomy in their mission. The Dept of Ag is there to PROMOTE American agriculture -- you think it's there to punish it and act as sheriff. Same with the FAA and EVERY OTHER Federal agency.. THey have to play both sides. You can't write energy policy without cavorting with the energy providers. Leftists mistakenly think this is possible. But without knowing proprietary information and bedding each other intimately -- any policy would be STUPID policy. Who the hell do you THINK is gonna write energy policy -- The Sierra Club?

You need to check your misconceptions about the role of govt and your fantasy about FDR every so often.. The romance you have is not based in reality...

Ironic, Oddball/Dude accuses me of ANARCHIST!" strawman, but THAT is what you and Intense are PROMOTING...

All your rant proves is the dangers of a corporatocracy and a plutocracy. Something that the conservative era has re-created. Regulatory capture is not regulation; it is wealth capturing the power to crush We, the People.

What is the remedy? The wealth disparity and human conditions today mirror the Gilded age. We need a new progressive movement that will lead to a second 'New Deal'.

You can emote all you want, but the PROOF is not on your side.

When you understand what conservatism is, every argument they make leads to the same end.

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

When you understand this and view their words, ask the question; will this lead to some form of an aristocracy?

The answer is always YES...


Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral

Actually no. Anarchy is not the answer. Anarchists make lousy roommates too. Take it from me. The first rule is there are no rules. What you cannot hold on to, by force if necessary is history. You can forget labeling anything you put in the fridge too, unless you mean it as a joke. I learned many years ago, wherever You bring Yourself, you bring your baggage. Best to work through those life lessons soberly and with integrity. Put that in your Peyote Pipe and smoke it. Remember to walk towards the Light.



Who is empowering these big Corporations with special Privilege? Government. Who taxes at every level of production and distribution? Government.
Recreated? It never went away.

You obviously think that you have not obstructed or spent enough. When Going off in a wrong direction, picking up speed compounds the problem, accelerates the decline. Why not instead, try teaching your wards marketable skills? I dare you. Maybe you can teach them to do your job?

When you understand what conservatism is, every argument they make leads to the same end.

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

To Me, speaking as a part Conservative, part Libertarian, part Classic Liberal, Conservatism is not wasting, not scheming, not misrepresenting. We follow "Constructive Liberty", not tearing down what works, but adapting it to need, through consent and Due Process. We try to follow the Rule of Law, both when it is convenient, and when it is not. That is also true of Enforcing it, when it is our Job. Your answer is absurd. Who do you think is pulling the Progressive Strings of Fascism. Follow the money. Your Progressivism is not true, it is a mask for the Power Grab. You seek to transform the Society into one Subject to your own Arbitrary Indulgences, it doesn't matter what the flavor of the week is, as long as the Society jumps when you tell it to.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

Sounds like he smoked allot of weed. Weed does make you Paranoid, sometimes. Trust God, Love Each Other.

BTW, Gladstone was a classic liberal...

Of course, people who support an aristocracy/corporatocracy and a plutocracy don't want chaos, especially from the serfs. They want ORDER. So, government's role is to remove the 'riff raff' and clean the blood off the streets. That is why conservatives created the most expensive 'Nanny State' in history.

The wealthy are not stupid. They know that capturing government is their best avenue to an aristocracy/corporatocracy and a plutocracy. Ronald Reagan was the pied piper on the road to serfdom, he was the biggest 'socialist' in our history; he transferred about 3 trillion dollars of wealth from the middle class to the opulent.

Intense, it's time to put aside all your emotional chanting and doctrinaire. Start presenting cold hard present facts. PROVE laizze faire creates more than just an aristocracy/corporatocracy and a plutocracy. But you can't because the more we dismantle the New Deal, the worse it gets for We, the People and our nation in economic terms and human terms.

The U.S. has come closer to laissez faire than most other countries, especially since the Reagan Administration. If free market policies are the best economic policies then we should have experienced the most robust growth in the world during this period. But this has not happened. We have been outstripped by our trading partners.

Table 1: Average Annual Growth in Real GNP per Capita

Country / 1980-1994 / 1985-1994
South Korea* 7.72% / 8.17%
Thailand* 5.81% / 7.74%
Taiwan* 6.20% / 7.07%
Peoples’ * 6.46% / 5.83%
Indonesia* 3.26% / 4.40%
Ireland 3.08% / 4.11%
India* 3.07% / 3.00%
Japan 2.88% / 2.78%
Spain 1.98% /2.65%
Italy 1.62% /1.89%
Belgium 1.48% /1.88%
Austria 1.58% / 1.74%
Netherlands 1.29% / 1.73%
United Kingdom 1.79% / 1.72%
Germany 1.56% /1.70%
Denmark 1.99% / 1.61%
Norway 2.09% /1.58%
Australia 1.54% /1.47%
United States 1.52% / 1.32%
Switzerland 0.84% / 0.80%
France 1.31% / 0.12%
Sweden 0.81% / 0.06%
Canada 0.86% /-0.73%
U.S.S.R.* -2.64% / -5.05%


"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

[Bern80]

Ironic, Oddball/Dude accuses me of ANARCHIST!" strawman, but THAT is what you and Intense are PROMOTING...

All your rant proves is the dangers of a corporatocracy and a plutocracy. Something that the conservative era has re-created. Regulatory capture is not regulation; it is wealth capturing the power to crush We, the People.

What is the remedy? The wealth disparity and human conditions today mirror the Gilded age. We need a new progressive movement that will lead to a second 'New Deal'.

You can emote all you want, but the PROOF is not on your side.

When you understand what conservatism is, every argument they make leads to the same end.

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

When you understand this and view their words, ask the question; will this lead to some form of an aristocracy?

The answer is always YES...


Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral

Actually no. Anarchy is not the answer. Anarchists make lousy roommates too. Take it from me. The first rule is there are no rules. What you cannot hold on to, by force if necessary is history. You can forget labeling anything you put in the fridge too, unless you mean it as a joke. I learned many years ago, wherever You bring Yourself, you bring your baggage. Best to work through those life lessons soberly and with integrity. Put that in your Peyote Pipe and smoke it. Remember to walk towards the Light.



Who is empowering these big Corporations with special Privilege? Government. Who taxes at every level of production and distribution? Government.
Recreated? It never went away.

You obviously think that you have not obstructed or spent enough. When Going off in a wrong direction, picking up speed compounds the problem, accelerates the decline. Why not instead, try teaching your wards marketable skills? I dare you. Maybe you can teach them to do your job?



To Me, speaking as a part Conservative, part Libertarian, part Classic Liberal, Conservatism is not wasting, not scheming, not misrepresenting. We follow "Constructive Liberty", not tearing down what works, but adapting it to need, through consent and Due Process. We try to follow the Rule of Law, both when it is convenient, and when it is not. That is also true of Enforcing it, when it is our Job. Your answer is absurd. Who do you think is pulling the Progressive Strings of Fascism. Follow the money. Your Progressivism is not true, it is a mask for the Power Grab. You seek to transform the Society into one Subject to your own Arbitrary Indulgences, it doesn't matter what the flavor of the week is, as long as the Society jumps when you tell it to.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

Sounds like he smoked allot of weed. Weed does make you Paranoid, sometimes. Trust God, Love Each Other.

BTW, Gladstone was a classic liberal...

Of course, people who support an aristocracy/corporatocracy and a plutocracy don't want chaos, especially from the serfs. They want ORDER. So, government's role is to remove the 'riff raff' and clean the blood off the streets. That is why conservatives created the most expensive 'Nanny State' in history.

The wealthy are not stupid. They know that capturing government is their best avenue to an aristocracy/corporatocracy and a plutocracy. Ronald Reagan was the pied piper on the road to serfdom, he was the biggest 'socialist' in our history; he transferred about 3 trillion dollars of wealth from the middle class to the opulent.

Intense, it's time to put aside all your emotional chanting and doctrinaire. Start presenting cold hard present facts. PROVE laizze faire creates more than just an aristocracy/corporatocracy and a plutocracy. But you can't because the more we dismantle the New Deal, the worse it gets for We, the People and our nation in economic terms and human terms.

The U.S. has come closer to laissez faire than most other countries, especially since the Reagan Administration. If free market policies are the best economic policies then we should have experienced the most robust growth in the world during this period. But this has not happened. We have been outstripped by our trading partners.

Table 1: Average Annual Growth in Real GNP per Capita

Country / 1980-1994 / 1985-1994
South Korea* 7.72% / 8.17%
Thailand* 5.81% / 7.74%
Taiwan* 6.20% / 7.07%
Peoples’ * 6.46% / 5.83%
Indonesia* 3.26% / 4.40%
Ireland 3.08% / 4.11%
India* 3.07% / 3.00%
Japan 2.88% / 2.78%
Spain 1.98% /2.65%
Italy 1.62% /1.89%
Belgium 1.48% /1.88%
Austria 1.58% / 1.74%
Netherlands 1.29% / 1.73%
United Kingdom 1.79% / 1.72%
Germany 1.56% /1.70%
Denmark 1.99% / 1.61%
Norway 2.09% /1.58%
Australia 1.54% /1.47%
United States 1.52% / 1.32%
Switzerland 0.84% / 0.80%
France 1.31% / 0.12%
Sweden 0.81% / 0.06%
Canada 0.86% /-0.73%
U.S.S.R.* -2.64% / -5.05%


"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

The problem is Bfg, what you're saying fails and are calling laizze faire, isn't laizze faire at all. You mention the problem of the wealthy inserting themselves to government in order to protect and obtain more wealth. That isn't laizze faire capitalism. That is corporate cronyism.

 

[Oddball]

The problem is Bfg, what you're saying fails and are calling laizze faire, isn't laizze faire at all. You mention the problem of the wealthy inserting themselves to government in order to protect and obtain more wealth. That isn't laizze faire capitalism. That is corporate cronyism.

He's buried up to his armpits in Hegelian dialectic.

If it's not his beloved communistic welfare/nanny state, it just has to be laissez-faire, anarchy, plutocracy, corporate capture, conservatism, ad nauseum...This leads to the cognitive dissonance that you're currently facing, when he's confronted with the fact that his "solutions" are part and parcel to most of the problems he constantly pisses and moans about.

 

[Bern80]

The problem is Bfg, what you're saying fails and are calling laizze faire, isn't laizze faire at all. You mention the problem of the wealthy inserting themselves to government in order to protect and obtain more wealth. That isn't laizze faire capitalism. That is corporate cronyism.

He's buried up to his armpits in Hegelian dialectic.

If it's not his beloved communistic welfare/nanny state, it just has to be laissez-faire, anarchy, plutocracy, corporate capture, conservatism, ad nauseum...This leads to the cognitive dissonance that you're currently facing, when he's confronted with the fact that his "solutions" are part and parcel to most of the problems he constantly pisses and moans about.

And yet AGAIN, corporate cronyism is really a problem of government having too much power. On top of separation of church and state, there needs to be separation of corporation and state. Then we can truly let whatever will be, will be happen.

 

[flacaltenn]

Bfgrn:

In addition to your gilded view of the glory of FDR, and your irrational love affair with a larger more powerful state apparatus --- Seems like you're also prone to being easily distracted by shiny objects.

I really don't give a dam about "wealth gap" charts. Whether the top 10% of wealth is concentrated in 10 people or 100,000. This is not a primary cause of decline in this country. It's merely an excuse to start cannabalizing the leftovers by the weak and flabby.

It's a side-effect of the economic COMPRESSION that we are in.. Something that the LEFT has ADVOCATED for years. Since GDP growth and expansion were an absolute abomination to Progressives --- Wasn't it BFgrn??? The reality that we are finally seeing the pain and anguish associated with the Progressive vision to HOBBLE the economy and make it "sustainable" -- is the first proof positive of the wrong-headedness of the Progressive mission. Think the American people want to CONTINUE the Progressive agenda now that they've seen the first Act of the playbook?

I DO however care about incarceration rates, since that is a real indication of state mandate over personal freedoms and rights. But you have failed to prove that our DEM/REP political monopoly gives any choice over that matter. Since neither party has addressed the fundamental reason for the rise in incarceration. In fact, California with it's 3 strikes law is NOT a hotbed of Conservatism and even with Med MaryJane stores on every urban street, there are STILL WAAY too many non-violent drug offenders cluttering up the prisons there.

Looking to tortured quotes from Gladstone using century old definitions of political affilation is not helpful to diagnosing and curing current economic problems. Even today's economists are using outdated models for our current economy. For instance the shift to a service economy has completely changed the "stimulus" model of encouraging consumption. It affects the size and growth patterns of business and their ability to fund expansion as well. Too many people looking over the stern..

All your rant proves is the dangers of a corporatocracy and a plutocracy. Something that the conservative era has re-created. Regulatory capture is not regulation; it is wealth capturing the power to crush We, the People.

If you were to diagnose this properly -- we'd be in agreement. There IS collusion between GOVT and "wealth". There is collusion between GOVT and Corporations. But you have the cause and effect ass-backwards.

When you ALLOW GOVT to increase it's ability to hand out favors, meddle in mergers, define phoney markets (like Green Jobs), and select winner/losers, --- there is NO CHOICE for wealth and corporations. They MUST be engaged in the process. Like it or not -- they (like Bill Gates learned when he was attacked by the state behemoth for handing out free software) will be recruited to lobby and influence the process.

Like I said, the GOVT can't prescribed an INTELLIGIENT, WORKABLE energy policy unless they know what's in the LABS, under the ground, and in the plans at ALL the energy companies. That involves ample fornication with "the enemy". And a need to get access to things that even INVESTORS don't have access to. After seeing the reality of NON-Intelligient investment aka Solyndra -- you start to realize that the govt isn't quite shooting even THAT accurately. This is the REALITY of GOVT/CORP collusion. No amount of reminiscing about FDR is gonna get you to this fact..

You don't blame the Corps and wealthy for TAKING the bait. You stop the chumming process. You get GOVT to concentrate on the BASIC Services for the people like Fair Elections and Voting, Like less international war and tension, Like Public Education, Like living within it's means. You wean all those corporate parasites OFF the bloodstream and force them to go wild again..

Til you get cause/effect right Bfgrn and accurately diagnose the problem --- there is no sense prescribing meds..

 

[Oddball]

Ironic, Oddball/Dude accuses me of ANARCHIST!" strawman, but THAT is what you and Intense are PROMOTING...

Goddamn psycho liar.