Govt: "Run it like a business"??? WHY???

[JakeStarkey]

Libertarians strive for dictatorial governments, which they will control.

 

[bucs90]

It was obvious that you never worked a day in the private sector.

You probably got a doctor's note faking some injury to start collecting a pension and get a second job.

I work part time in the private sector now.

Disabled. Got clipped in the knee, rehab went horribly wrong and couldnt return.

Got any other personal info you want before actually debating the topic?

What is to debate when you have difficulty differentiating between fed, state and local............

Thats the point of the debate...for you to explain it to me. Go!

If it is un-Constitutional for the Feds to do it....then it probably isn't legal for the state or city to do it either.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Nope. Retired from Atlanta PD (medical). Retirement pay sucks, supplements my current income enough to get by.

Why? Do I need a certain career to validate my views? Will the local GOP office issue me an opinion with the proper qualifications?

It was obvious that you never worked a day in the private sector.

You probably got a doctor's note faking some injury to start collecting a pension and get a second job.

I work part time in the private sector now.

Disabled. Got clipped in the knee, rehab went horribly wrong and couldnt return.

Got any other personal info you want before actually debating the topic?

What topic? That you're a Progressive Compulsive Liar and Attention Whore? OK. When did you first notice that you had to lie?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Proving Jake knows less than nothing about Libertarians

Libertarians strive for dictatorial governments, which they will control.

 

[LibertyForAll]

Oh Jesus Christ... it is not going to lay out every base needed for national defense.... you can argue all you want whether we SHOULD have a base in South Korea or Turkey, but the federal government is indeed constitutionally charged with national defense... the government is NOT constitutionally charged to take care of individual needs of individual citizens

Haha, so the defense part is to be considered general language but everything else must be explicit. How convenient.

Yep. Kinda hard to "pursue happiness" these days if you dont have a road and bridge to drive to work on isn't it?

Roads should not be a federal issue for all the reasons you have listed. Local governments know where the needs are and should address them if the citizens of that community agree that it is priority.

I can agree that police should be a government provided service since they are mandated to uphold the law and protect the rights of citizens. I don't necessarily agree with the size of the government agencies that we have or the scope of the powers granted to them.

The fire departments could be privatized and might possibly be more efficient that way but I agree this is a necessary service at the local level. Privatization would still require funds from taxation so either way it is an expense.

The DMV is just an arm of the Dept. of Revenue. I think we could live without the DMV if a requirement was made for a drivers license then private companies could become certified to give the tests and license people. The other functions are solely for revenue collection.

I am in favor of some regulation of pollution but I don't think the government should be in the business of steering the private sector or engineering outcomes through market manipulation or subsidation.


When people talk about cutting government they aren't really talking about roads or police and firemen. They are talking about waste and fraud and government overreach. There is a difference and the obfuscation of those lines is the meat and potatoes of the left because they use necessary expenses like police to justify welfare and other entitlements.

 

[bucs90]

Libertarians strive for dictatorial governments, which they will control.

I disagree.

I believe the far right libertarian view of government, in full bloom, would resemble Mexico or Afghanistan, where the "government" is so small, weak, underfunded and undertrained that it is easily overpowered by local gangs, cartels, etc, and has little power to regulate anything within it's borders.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Some screwy "constitutionalists" believe, a al John Birch Society etc, that a government can do no more morally than a human can do.

Governments, if run by We the People, are, in fact, "persons" far more than corporations.

 

[DiamondDave]

The fed is not charged to give monies, etc to the states or localities... that is correct...

Now, the national guard (funded by the state and in joint effort with the military) does indeed use equipment resources in state/local emergencies and the fed does use natty guard units for national defense purposes in a symbiotic relationship... but to have the fed use money and funds to bail out a town hit by a tornado or wildfire should not be done.. .period

Ah.

So, you would be fine if we told Haiti to fuck off? Or the tsunami victims to go shove it up their asses? Ok, fair enough.

What about New Orleans? Damn Democrat mayor really dropped the ball. Would you have just let chaos reign even longer than it already did?

So you're saying it's ok for the states to send their National Guard units to fight an overseas federal war.........but not for the feds to send their military to aid in a local disaster? Hmmmmm. The Constitution isn't a very generous document, is it?

The constitution is not written or empowered to be 'generous'... generosity is not the reason for government

The natty guard was directly formed for the use of military technology and resources specifically for the state... to have trained troops that the state funded to use for their emergencies, but in return at to also be used in time of national emergency... as I said, in symbiotic relationship but not just federally funded

The DEM mayor did fuck up... there were fuckups all over the place in that fiasco... that does not make it the responsibility of the federal government to take over

Haiti, fuck off.. Thailand, fuck off.. Money given to Egypt or wherever else, fuck off... the government does not exist to be in the business to be an allowance giver or to kiss the boo boos of every other couuntry

 

[JakeStarkey]

Says the kid typing away in a basement.

Proving Jake knows less than nothing about Libertarians

Libertarians strive for dictatorial governments, which they will control.

 

[Shelzin]

Libertarians strive for dictatorial governments, which they will control.

*laughs*

Wait...

You did mean that as a joke right?

 

[DiamondDave]

I work part time in the private sector now.

Disabled. Got clipped in the knee, rehab went horribly wrong and couldnt return.

Got any other personal info you want before actually debating the topic?

What is to debate when you have difficulty differentiating between fed, state and local............

Thats the point of the debate...for you to explain it to me. Go!

If it is un-Constitutional for the Feds to do it....then it probably isn't legal for the state or city to do it either.

It is why the states have their own constitutions to deal with things...

Understand what the 10th amendment does, fool...

 

[JakeStarkey]

You just described what I said: libertarians will be criminal/business overlords that will control government.

Libertarians strive for dictatorial governments, which they will control.

I disagree.

I believe the far right libertarian view of government, in full bloom, would resemble Mexico or Afghanistan, where the "government" is so small, weak, underfunded and undertrained that it is easily overpowered by local gangs, cartels, etc, and has little power to regulate anything within it's borders.

 

[Full-Auto]

Libertarians strive for dictatorial governments, which they will control.

I know I know you will prove at sometime in the future..............

 

[bucs90]

Haha, so the defense part is to be considered general language but everything else must be explicit. How convenient.

Yep. Kinda hard to "pursue happiness" these days if you dont have a road and bridge to drive to work on isn't it?

Roads should not be a federal issue for all the reasons you have listed. Local governments know where the needs are and should address them if the citizens of that community agree that it is priority.

I can agree that police should be a government provided service since they are mandated to uphold the law and protect the rights of citizens. I don't necessarily agree with the size of the government agencies that we have or the scope of the powers granted to them.

The fire departments could be privatized and might possibly be more efficient that way but I agree this is a necessary service at the local level. Privatization would still require funds from taxation so either way it is an expense.

The DMV is just an arm of the Dept. of Revenue. I think we could live without the DMV if a requirement was made for a drivers license then private companies could become certified to give the tests and license people. The other functions are solely for revenue collection.

I am in favor of some regulation of pollution but I don't think the government should be in the business of steering the private sector or engineering outcomes through market manipulation or subsidation.


When people talk about cutting government they aren't really talking about roads or police and firemen. They are talking about waste and fraud and government overreach. There is a difference and the obfuscation of those lines is the meat and potatoes of the left because they use necessary expenses like police to justify welfare and other entitlements.

- In the case of roads, think about very rural areas. Even with 50% tax rates, the tiny population wouldn't have the money to fund, say, a big bridge across a river in the mountains of NC or West VA. Thus, the larger whole (the state or nation) have a collective pool of resources for those roads. Many of those big bridges are interstate, which interstate commerce uses. WHy should the locals pay 100% of that?

Your last paragraph is one I truly wish was true. And it may be in many places. I agree with it 100%. But in my state, police and fire are absolutely lumped in with the whole government as something needing to be slashed. Maybe the SC Tea Party is just very extreme with it's hatred of govt workers, to include cops. But it drove me away from the party.

Although I'll vote Dem, I still hold the belief that there is A LOT of waste in govt that can be cut, like recreation departments.

(*The DMV is a crucial key for police. Not for traffic stuff, but addresses and photos. It's how they track down a lot of criminals on the run and do photo lineups. A private DMV would require cooperation like phone companies do now).

 

[JakeStarkey]

Shelzin, go study libertarianism and communism, and come away realizing the role of cadres in "societies of equals" and in "societies of cadre-led proletariats."

Libertarians strive for dictatorial governments, which they will control.

*laughs*

Wait...

You did mean that as a joke right?

 

[Ernie S.]

wow this is a confused mess. I agree with you that a government should not be run like a business but it should also not be treated as a vehicle for wealth distribution. The government should lower taxes and it should cut spending and it should get rid of people and cut salaries. The government is a parasite on the economy it takes money out of the economy and adds nothing of value. The prices that you list as going up are going up because of government meddling. Also you seem to be confusing local government services with federal services and they are completely different.

And thats all fine, IF, you are willing to accept the McDonalds level of govt service rather than the Outback version. If we cut salaries, downsize, etc, we'll have less qualified employees, less services, less capability to "do something" about problems. You'll get:

- Worse roads, less maintenance.
- Less qualified cops, with less experience (more crime, more rudeness, more corruption, longer response time)
- Same as above with firemen (longer response time, less experienced and training)
- An even WORSE situation at the DMV, longer lines, dumber employees
- Worse public schools, less experienced teachers
- Worse public works service: Clean roads, trash service, sewer flow, etc, etc

Your idea is fine, if you are willing to accept far less government service. Each of us will have to contribute more to our own well being in the community. Ready to do so?

There ya go talking about things that are the responsibility of state and local government. The feds should be taxing only for the powers it is granted in the Constitution in Article 1, section 8.

 

[bucs90]

What is to debate when you have difficulty differentiating between fed, state and local............

Thats the point of the debate...for you to explain it to me. Go!

If it is un-Constitutional for the Feds to do it....then it probably isn't legal for the state or city to do it either.

It is why the states have their own constitutions to deal with things...

Understand what the 10th amendment does, fool...

No.

If it is un-Constitutional for the feds to do something, then the states and cities cant do it either. Thats 100% fact. No city or state can do something that violates the US Constitution. That is not debate material, it's law. Do they do that anyway? Sure, I dont think the Constitution specifically allowed for a city rec department that offers youth soccer. But they do it anyway.

But then agian.......the Constitution didn't allow for fire departments or air marshalls either.

 

[Ernie S.]

Libertarians strive for dictatorial governments, which they will control.

I know I know you will prove at sometime in the future..............

It's a joke, as is nearly every post from JokeStarkey

 

[Shelzin]

Shelzin, go study libertarianism and communism, and come away realizing the role of cadres in "societies of equals" and in "societies of cadre-led proletariats."

Libertarians strive for dictatorial governments, which they will control.

*laughs*

Wait...

You did mean that as a joke right?

OH my god you didn't mean it as a joke.

Well... ok then. So noted.

 

[bucs90]

wow this is a confused mess. I agree with you that a government should not be run like a business but it should also not be treated as a vehicle for wealth distribution. The government should lower taxes and it should cut spending and it should get rid of people and cut salaries. The government is a parasite on the economy it takes money out of the economy and adds nothing of value. The prices that you list as going up are going up because of government meddling. Also you seem to be confusing local government services with federal services and they are completely different.

And thats all fine, IF, you are willing to accept the McDonalds level of govt service rather than the Outback version. If we cut salaries, downsize, etc, we'll have less qualified employees, less services, less capability to "do something" about problems. You'll get:

- Worse roads, less maintenance.
- Less qualified cops, with less experience (more crime, more rudeness, more corruption, longer response time)
- Same as above with firemen (longer response time, less experienced and training)
- An even WORSE situation at the DMV, longer lines, dumber employees
- Worse public schools, less experienced teachers
- Worse public works service: Clean roads, trash service, sewer flow, etc, etc

Your idea is fine, if you are willing to accept far less government service. Each of us will have to contribute more to our own well being in the community. Ready to do so?

There ya go talking about things that are the responsibility of state and local government. The feds should be taxing only for the powers it it granted in the Constitution in Article 1, section 8.

So you're saying the Feds dont fund highways? Ok. I-95 runs through a few VERY poor and rural counties in South Carolina. People from NY to Miami use it. Should the folks of Orangeburg County (SC), very poor, very rural, have an 85% tax rate to maintain their stretch of 95 just so people from Miami and NY can drive through?????

And you're saying that a nation wide crime spree......say, credit card fraud or bank robbery across 15 states, should have to be prosecuted by each individual city or state, backing up the courts, costing huge fuel costs to transfer prisoners to each trial, and which state must jail him and feed him? OR............should the FBI (federal cops) just take over the case, charge him with a federal crime, and do it more efficiently?

Yeah, the Feds have no place in roadway or law enforcement, right?