Dispelling the Big Government Myth

[dblack]

Just stop bitching that the government is not responsive to the wishes of the people that don't have the capital to invest in the politicians.

I don't really want government that is responsive to anyone's wishes, so I guess it's a moot point.

 

[Tehon]

Just stop bitching that the government is not responsive to the wishes of the people that don't have the capital to invest in the politicians.

I don't really want government that is responsive to anyone's wishes, so I guess it's a moot point.

Are you an anarchist or just want to live in a totalitarian society?

 

[dblack]

Just stop bitching that the government is not responsive to the wishes of the people that don't have the capital to invest in the politicians.

I don't really want government that is responsive to anyone's wishes, so I guess it's a moot point.

Are you an anarchist or just want to live in a totalitarian society?

No. I just don't want government granting wishes. I want a government that protects our rights.

 

[Tehon]

Just stop bitching that the government is not responsive to the wishes of the people that don't have the capital to invest in the politicians.

I don't really want government that is responsive to anyone's wishes, so I guess it's a moot point.

Are you an anarchist or just want to live in a totalitarian society?

No. I just don't want government granting wishes. I want a government that protects our rights.

That's cool. I can understand that.

 

[Boss]

I think there is a better way that doesn't require you to do all the work involved and still leaves everyone in a better position. Well, everyone except the capitalist.

There is not a better way than free market capitalism. The historic results prove this unequivocally. When the free market is allowed to function as designed, it produces bountiful wealth and economic prosperity. Nothing else has ever come close. You believe in a Marxist fantasy because you want to believe it. On paper, it appears people (especially "the worker") would be better off and the system would be more fair. However, when these systems have been attempted, they always fail because they can't predict the human element. When you strangle your capitalists, there is no incentive or motivation to achieve wealth and the whole system becomes totally corrupt and collapses, usually resulting in heinous atrocities.

It turns out, when you remove wealth acquisition as a driving motivator and incentive, control of power fills the void. Power breeds corruption. So your idealist system intended to help "the worker" eventually enables tyrants who wield tremendous unchecked power over the individual.

Intellectuals won't give up on the notion because they don't want to admit failure. How can they be so smart but have this so incredibly wrong? So they keep finding excuses for the failures and creating new incarnations of their ideology to try again.

What works, what creates wildly successful economic prosperity and wealth, is private property ownership, individual liberty, freedom of enterprise, constitutional rights and a robust free market that is largely unencumbered by government. It's because this system unleashes the power of the human spirit.

 

[regent]

I think there is a better way that doesn't require you to do all the work involved and still leaves everyone in a better position. Well, everyone except the capitalist.

There is not a better way than free market capitalism. The historic results prove this unequivocally. When the free market is allowed to function as designed, it produces bountiful wealth and economic prosperity. Nothing else has ever come close. You believe in a Marxist fantasy because you want to believe it. On paper, it appears people (especially "the worker") would be better off and the system would be more fair. However, when these systems have been attempted, they always fail because they can't predict the human element. When you strangle your capitalists, there is no incentive or motivation to achieve wealth and the whole system becomes totally corrupt and collapses, usually resulting in heinous atrocities.

It turns out, when you remove wealth acquisition as a driving motivator and incentive, control of power fills the void. Power breeds corruption. So your idealist system intended to help "the worker" eventually enables tyrants who wield tremendous unchecked power over the individual.

Intellectuals won't give up on the notion because they don't want to admit failure. How can they be so smart but have this so incredibly wrong? So they keep finding excuses for the failures and creating new incarnations of their ideology to try again.

What works, what creates wildly successful economic prosperity and wealth, is private property ownership, individual liberty, freedom of enterprise, constitutional rights and a robust free market that is largely unencumbered by government. It's because this system unleashes the power of the human spirit.

So what countries have this wildly successful economic prosperity and wealth?

 

[Tehon]

It turns out, when you remove wealth acquisition as a driving motivator and incentive, control of power fills the void. Power breeds corruption. So your idealist system intended to help "the worker" eventually enables tyrants who wield tremendous unchecked power over the individual.

You really don't see the irony in that statement? You think wealth acquisition doesn't lead to oppression? You live in a fantasy world.

 

[Boss]

It turns out, when you remove wealth acquisition as a driving motivator and incentive, control of power fills the void. Power breeds corruption. So your idealist system intended to help "the worker" eventually enables tyrants who wield tremendous unchecked power over the individual.

You really don't see the irony in that statement? You think wealth acquisition doesn't lead to oppression? You live in a fantasy world.

Not in a free market system. Oppression happens in your Marxist system. With freedom of enterprise, individual liberty, private property ownership, a constitution and a free market unencumbered by government, you cannot be oppressed. If you are, it's by your own choice.

There's nothing ironic about my statement. You're just pumped full of Marxist koolaid and refuse to accept the truth. Some little shitstain has convinced you that you can't succeed in the most prosperous and free country to ever exist. I've always had some sympathy for European and Asian peasants who fell for the pipedream of Marx. They were shackled to a hopeless future with no chance. But I can't feel sorry for people born or living in America who buy that claptrap... you're just fucking stupid.

 

[Boss]

So what countries have this wildly successful economic prosperity and wealth?

Well... OURS!

 

[gipper]

Just stop bitching that the government is not responsive to the wishes of the people that don't have the capital to invest in the politicians.

I don't really want government that is responsive to anyone's wishes, so I guess it's a moot point.

Are you an anarchist or just want to live in a totalitarian society?

No. I just don't want government granting wishes. I want a government that protects our rights.

Agreed.

The Founders set up a government designed to protect the rights of the people. Today we have a government that tramples on our rights, while enriching and empowering itself and wealthy interests connected to it.

Our government today has more in common with Mafia racketeering, than it does with it's original design.

 

[dblack]

It turns out, when you remove wealth acquisition as a driving motivator and incentive, control of power fills the void. Power breeds corruption. So your idealist system intended to help "the worker" eventually enables tyrants who wield tremendous unchecked power over the individual.

You really don't see the irony in that statement? You think wealth acquisition doesn't lead to oppression? You live in a fantasy world.

The ironic fantasy of socialism is that it does away with wealth acquisition, but it doesn't do that. It merely transfers it to government. That's what Boss is referring to here. All of the greed and lust for power the drives capitalists is still there, it's just co-opted by the state. That means people who want that kind power will become politicians rather than capitalists. Except that now they will have all the coercive power of the state at their disposal.

I guess your vision is that democracy will give the People more power over that wealth if it is in the hands of government, but that's an even bigger fantasy. Let's set aside, for the moment, the fact that the US isn't set up as a democracy. Let's pretend we have a perfectly functioning, direct democracy, where everyone gets to vote on every issue. Even under such an ideal setup, the individual consumer has less power than they do in a free market, not more. Here's why:

In democracy, majority rules. If the Bureau of Entertainment is trying to decide what movies to make this year, and 51% of voters love war movies and hate documentaries about global warming - what are we gonna get? And almost half of the voters are going to be disappointed. They'll be powerless to demand anything beyond what the majority will authorize. In a free market we'll still get more war movies, but capitalists aren't going to leave money on the table. They'll still make global warming movies for the 49%. And they'll be chasing the profits available in catering to any niche audience with money to spend. The Bureau of Entertainment has no such incentive.

 

[Boss]

Just stop bitching that the government is not responsive to the wishes of the people that don't have the capital to invest in the politicians.

I don't really want government that is responsive to anyone's wishes, so I guess it's a moot point.

Are you an anarchist or just want to live in a totalitarian society?

No. I just don't want government granting wishes. I want a government that protects our rights.

Agreed.

The Founders set up a government designed to protect the rights of the people. Today we have a government that tramples on our rights, while enriching and empowering itself and wealthy interests connected to it.

Our government today has more in common with Mafia racketeering, than it does with it's original design.

AND... Save for a few respites (Reagan, Coolidge, etc.), governmental policy and programs have been instituted by Progressives! The "fucked up mess" they squawk and complain about is what THEY created! It's THEIR policies that brought us here and what do they propose as solutions? MORE of THEIR policies!

 

[Boss]

The ironic fantasy of socialism is that it does away with wealth acquisition, but it doesn't do that. It merely transfers it to government. That's what Boss is referring to here. All of the greed and lust for power the drives capitalists is still there, it's just co-opted by the state. That means people who want that kind power will become politicians rather than capitalists. Except that now they will have all the coercive power of the state at their disposal.

Here is the really crazy thing... With corporate power, the individual has an outlet to respond... you have an 800-number you can call and complain to customer service. You have an email address you can write and complain to as a consumer. You can boycott businesses. You have dozens or hundreds of consumer advocacy groups in your corner, fighting for your interests. But with government power, all of that is gone... you have absolutely NO recourse.

 

[gipper]

The ironic fantasy of socialism is that it does away with wealth acquisition, but it doesn't do that. It merely transfers it to government. That's what Boss is referring to here. All of the greed and lust for power the drives capitalists is still there, it's just co-opted by the state. That means people who want that kind power will become politicians rather than capitalists. Except that now they will have all the coercive power of the state at their disposal.

Here is the really crazy thing... With corporate power, the individual has an outlet to respond... you have an 800-number you can call and complain to customer service. You have an email address you can write and complain to as a consumer. You can boycott businesses. You have dozens or hundreds of consumer advocacy groups in your corner, fighting for your interests. But with government power, all of that is gone... you have absolutely NO recourse.

This old saying is very apt...."you can't fight City Hall."

Reminds me of an old friend who upon returning via automobile to the USA from Canada, was beaten badly and repeatedly threatened with his life. Guns in his face and handcuffed. Held for several hours. Then, they realized they had the wrong man. He immediately got in touch with a lawyer and his Congressman. In the end, he had got nothing. Not even a 'sorry.'

 

[Tehon]

It turns out, when you remove wealth acquisition as a driving motivator and incentive, control of power fills the void. Power breeds corruption. So your idealist system intended to help "the worker" eventually enables tyrants who wield tremendous unchecked power over the individual.

You really don't see the irony in that statement? You think wealth acquisition doesn't lead to oppression? You live in a fantasy world.

The ironic fantasy of socialism is that it does away with wealth acquisition, but it doesn't do that. It merely transfers it to government. That's what Boss is referring to here. All of the greed and lust for power the drives capitalists is still there, it's just co-opted by the state. That means people who want that kind power will become politicians rather than capitalists. Except that now they will have all the coercive power of the state at their disposal.

I guess your vision is that democracy will give the People more power over that wealth if it is in the hands of government, but that's an even bigger fantasy. Let's set aside, for the moment, the fact that the US isn't set up as a democracy. Let's pretend we have a perfectly functioning, direct democracy, where everyone gets to vote on every issue. Even under such an ideal setup, the individual consumer has less power than they do in a free market, not more. Here's why:

In democracy, majority rules. If the Bureau of Entertainment is trying to decide what movies to make this year, and 51% of voters love war movies and hate documentaries about global warming - what are we gonna get? And almost half of the voters are going to be disappointed. They'll be powerless to demand anything beyond what the majority will authorize. In a free market we'll still get more war movies, but capitalists aren't going to leave money on the table. They'll still make global warming movies for the 49%. And they'll be chasing the profits available in catering to any niche audience with money to spend. The Bureau of Entertainment has no such incentive.

The ironic fantasy of socialism is that it does away with wealth acquisition, but it doesn't do that. It merely transfers it to government. That's what Boss is referring to here. All of the greed and lust for power the drives capitalists is still there, it's just co-opted by the state. That means people who want that kind power will become politicians rather than capitalists. Except that now they will have all the coercive power of the state at their disposal.

Maybe ya'll live in some type of bubble and haven't noticed, but the coercive power of the state is in capitalists hands now. Money is power. A socialist mode of production would rectify that problem by preventing capital accumulation which leads to tyranny.

 

[Tehon]

It turns out, when you remove wealth acquisition as a driving motivator and incentive, control of power fills the void. Power breeds corruption. So your idealist system intended to help "the worker" eventually enables tyrants who wield tremendous unchecked power over the individual.

You really don't see the irony in that statement? You think wealth acquisition doesn't lead to oppression? You live in a fantasy world.

Not in a free market system. Oppression happens in your Marxist system. With freedom of enterprise, individual liberty, private property ownership, a constitution and a free market unencumbered by government, you cannot be oppressed. If you are, it's by your own choice.

There's nothing ironic about my statement. You're just pumped full of Marxist koolaid and refuse to accept the truth. Some little shitstain has convinced you that you can't succeed in the most prosperous and free country to ever exist. I've always had some sympathy for European and Asian peasants who fell for the pipedream of Marx. They were shackled to a hopeless future with no chance. But I can't feel sorry for people born or living in America who buy that claptrap... you're just fucking stupid.

The capitalist system is built on exploitation. Exploitation is a form of oppression.
Besides it's human nature. That's what you people always say about socialism right?

you're just fucking stupid.

Tone it down please. I just taught you what purpose the market served in society. You should be thanking me.

 

[gipper]

It turns out, when you remove wealth acquisition as a driving motivator and incentive, control of power fills the void. Power breeds corruption. So your idealist system intended to help "the worker" eventually enables tyrants who wield tremendous unchecked power over the individual.

You really don't see the irony in that statement? You think wealth acquisition doesn't lead to oppression? You live in a fantasy world.

The ironic fantasy of socialism is that it does away with wealth acquisition, but it doesn't do that. It merely transfers it to government. That's what Boss is referring to here. All of the greed and lust for power the drives capitalists is still there, it's just co-opted by the state. That means people who want that kind power will become politicians rather than capitalists. Except that now they will have all the coercive power of the state at their disposal.

I guess your vision is that democracy will give the People more power over that wealth if it is in the hands of government, but that's an even bigger fantasy. Let's set aside, for the moment, the fact that the US isn't set up as a democracy. Let's pretend we have a perfectly functioning, direct democracy, where everyone gets to vote on every issue. Even under such an ideal setup, the individual consumer has less power than they do in a free market, not more. Here's why:

In democracy, majority rules. If the Bureau of Entertainment is trying to decide what movies to make this year, and 51% of voters love war movies and hate documentaries about global warming - what are we gonna get? And almost half of the voters are going to be disappointed. They'll be powerless to demand anything beyond what the majority will authorize. In a free market we'll still get more war movies, but capitalists aren't going to leave money on the table. They'll still make global warming movies for the 49%. And they'll be chasing the profits available in catering to any niche audience with money to spend. The Bureau of Entertainment has no such incentive.

The ironic fantasy of socialism is that it does away with wealth acquisition, but it doesn't do that. It merely transfers it to government. That's what Boss is referring to here. All of the greed and lust for power the drives capitalists is still there, it's just co-opted by the state. That means people who want that kind power will become politicians rather than capitalists. Except that now they will have all the coercive power of the state at their disposal.

Maybe ya'll live in some type of bubble and haven't noticed, but the coercive power of the state is in capitalists hands now. Money is power. A socialist mode of production would rectify that problem by preventing capital accumulation which leads to tyranny.

There is some truth to that, but socialism is more tyrannical since you merely transfer all power to a small corrupt elite running the nation.

 

[Tehon]

It turns out, when you remove wealth acquisition as a driving motivator and incentive, control of power fills the void. Power breeds corruption. So your idealist system intended to help "the worker" eventually enables tyrants who wield tremendous unchecked power over the individual.

You really don't see the irony in that statement? You think wealth acquisition doesn't lead to oppression? You live in a fantasy world.

The ironic fantasy of socialism is that it does away with wealth acquisition, but it doesn't do that. It merely transfers it to government. That's what Boss is referring to here. All of the greed and lust for power the drives capitalists is still there, it's just co-opted by the state. That means people who want that kind power will become politicians rather than capitalists. Except that now they will have all the coercive power of the state at their disposal.

I guess your vision is that democracy will give the People more power over that wealth if it is in the hands of government, but that's an even bigger fantasy. Let's set aside, for the moment, the fact that the US isn't set up as a democracy. Let's pretend we have a perfectly functioning, direct democracy, where everyone gets to vote on every issue. Even under such an ideal setup, the individual consumer has less power than they do in a free market, not more. Here's why:

In democracy, majority rules. If the Bureau of Entertainment is trying to decide what movies to make this year, and 51% of voters love war movies and hate documentaries about global warming - what are we gonna get? And almost half of the voters are going to be disappointed. They'll be powerless to demand anything beyond what the majority will authorize. In a free market we'll still get more war movies, but capitalists aren't going to leave money on the table. They'll still make global warming movies for the 49%. And they'll be chasing the profits available in catering to any niche audience with money to spend. The Bureau of Entertainment has no such incentive.

The ironic fantasy of socialism is that it does away with wealth acquisition, but it doesn't do that. It merely transfers it to government. That's what Boss is referring to here. All of the greed and lust for power the drives capitalists is still there, it's just co-opted by the state. That means people who want that kind power will become politicians rather than capitalists. Except that now they will have all the coercive power of the state at their disposal.

Maybe ya'll live in some type of bubble and haven't noticed, but the coercive power of the state is in capitalists hands now. Money is power. A socialist mode of production would rectify that problem by preventing capital accumulation which leads to tyranny.

There is some truth to that, but socialism is more tyrannical since you merely transfer all power to a small corrupt elite running the nation.

As a proponent of a socialist system I would never give control to the state. You do not understand the possibilities of a socialist system of production.

 

[dblack]

Maybe ya'll live in some type of bubble and haven't noticed, but the coercive power of the state is in capitalists hands now. Money is power. A socialist mode of production would rectify that problem by preventing capital accumulation which leads to tyranny.

Capital accumulation by government IS tyranny.

 

[dblack]

It turns out, when you remove wealth acquisition as a driving motivator and incentive, control of power fills the void. Power breeds corruption. So your idealist system intended to help "the worker" eventually enables tyrants who wield tremendous unchecked power over the individual.

You really don't see the irony in that statement? You think wealth acquisition doesn't lead to oppression? You live in a fantasy world.

The ironic fantasy of socialism is that it does away with wealth acquisition, but it doesn't do that. It merely transfers it to government. That's what Boss is referring to here. All of the greed and lust for power the drives capitalists is still there, it's just co-opted by the state. That means people who want that kind power will become politicians rather than capitalists. Except that now they will have all the coercive power of the state at their disposal.

I guess your vision is that democracy will give the People more power over that wealth if it is in the hands of government, but that's an even bigger fantasy. Let's set aside, for the moment, the fact that the US isn't set up as a democracy. Let's pretend we have a perfectly functioning, direct democracy, where everyone gets to vote on every issue. Even under such an ideal setup, the individual consumer has less power than they do in a free market, not more. Here's why:

In democracy, majority rules. If the Bureau of Entertainment is trying to decide what movies to make this year, and 51% of voters love war movies and hate documentaries about global warming - what are we gonna get? And almost half of the voters are going to be disappointed. They'll be powerless to demand anything beyond what the majority will authorize. In a free market we'll still get more war movies, but capitalists aren't going to leave money on the table. They'll still make global warming movies for the 49%. And they'll be chasing the profits available in catering to any niche audience with money to spend. The Bureau of Entertainment has no such incentive.

The ironic fantasy of socialism is that it does away with wealth acquisition, but it doesn't do that. It merely transfers it to government. That's what Boss is referring to here. All of the greed and lust for power the drives capitalists is still there, it's just co-opted by the state. That means people who want that kind power will become politicians rather than capitalists. Except that now they will have all the coercive power of the state at their disposal.

Maybe ya'll live in some type of bubble and haven't noticed, but the coercive power of the state is in capitalists hands now. Money is power. A socialist mode of production would rectify that problem by preventing capital accumulation which leads to tyranny.

There is some truth to that, but socialism is more tyrannical since you merely transfer all power to a small corrupt elite running the nation.

As a proponent of a socialist system I would never give control to the state. You do not understand the possibilities of a socialist system of production.

Is this where you tilt all anarchist?