Yell,

I think you misunderstood me for meaning the Federal government. My discussion of government was generic and intended to mean local, state and federal. My point was that some services can not be provided by a private company, unless you want to argue we should contract private protection companies to protect us. If that is your view, then I will let Flint defeat it.

I am in full agreement.

> The Yell wrote:

> >>One fundamental problem with this idea: It will be impossible for anyone to construct models that say they will create a balanced budget...<<

WRONG i can name my revenue goal and then destroy all programs in excess of that revenue = balanced budget>

- Poverty rises.
- Meritocracy collapses, favoring those who win the sperm lottery.
- The masses become so uneducated that it makes no sense to hold elections.
- The environment gets polluted
- Crime goes up
- Corruption rises, and police demand bribes because they can't get paid enough.

My solution: Colonize Bolivia and Venezuela. Meanwhile, give the troops generous estates as payment for their services.

It would be a perfect solution to Chinese incursions of our periphery, make South American leaders less bold to mess with us, and reduce our overpopulation problem. Europe will just scream and do nothing, and we will have access to oil for our exploitation.

Oh, I concede it will have short-term consequences. Nevertheless, banks can not be allowed to be the international behemoths they have become. We need new laws to prevent banks from owning trillions of dollars in assets and merging with other banks. The alternative, of course, is a nightmare.

And the idea of using the auction proceeds to pay off the debt is merely a side benefit.

Socialism is the stage between capitalism and communism. Marx said so.

Of course, there is the concept of the welfare state/social democracy, but that is something different.

It's obvious the religious right can not co-exist with mainstream society. Rather than a civil war, I would prefer territory with semi-autonomy be partitioned off for them to live exactly as they please. The only service they would receive from the state is military protection, and they would be expected to obey some basic commerce laws, pay taxes for the military and court system, and forfeit their right to political participation on the federal level. Beyond that, they can institute whatever religious laws and education they want within their jurisdiction.

The alternative, of course, is war.

There are exceptions where politicians (usually Liberal) spend money like a 12 year old with a credit card on a shopping spree, but the general answer is that debt is a trade-off for stimulating the economy in a recession.

If you want to stimulate the economy by lowering taxes so consumers buy more, then you either cut public services or you pay the short-falls with debt. Since cutting public services is often unpopular and possibly even defeats the stimulus, debt is often the preferred strategy.

If you want to stimulate the economy by government spending, then you either raise taxes or pay it with debt. Since raising taxes is also unpopular and may defeat the stimulus, debt is often the preferred method of choice.

There is nothing wrong with taking out debt. It only becomes a problem when the state consistently requires more debt to balance the budget and there is no way to pay it off. Like with Greece and the US today. We need to consider serious spending cuts and reorganization. We can start by outlawing various union practices, who are now no different from medieval guilds. We can also cut stupid social programs and military spending.

LOLz.

A lot of Liberals must be really separated from reality. Violence doesn't solve anything is a commonly held belief among them. Of course, violence solves a LOT of things. Bullies bully because it's not costly for them to do so, but they stop when they experience resistance. My experience confirms this, like yours.

Moreover, it's similar to the observation that having a military of relatively equal power as your neighbors ensures security. An aggressor will invade if they believe their opponents are weak and easily defeated, but will avoid confrontation if they will risk defeat or a heavy price.

How about something written by an Analytic philosopher? Continentals all suck.

Firewing,

A two-party system results from a Presidential democracy. We need a Parliamentary system if we are to have more than two parties. But for the reason Presidential democracy is generally authoritarian and favors two-party systems, I favor Parliamentary democracy.

As for Occupy Wall Street, they are idiots. The one eternal truth about politics is that the strong exact what they can, and the weak concede what they must. Their little "true democracy" fantasy will unfold as every revolution has before them: it will be considered "betrayed." Not so much betrayed, however, the political system will be reorganized to reflect what is natural.

Truth be told, the political reality is that democracies have nothing to do with representation or "people power." The only reason to prefer democracy is that they are more likely to make the elite more accountable than elites of countries with another government type.