Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Justify Your Government's Legitimacy
Play nice people!
Ye ol' moderators are keeping an eye on you all.
Thanks for leaving the "Blow me." in there.
I don't really have anything else to say. I appreciate that you left that message unadulterated. <3
V.Kemp wrote:
"I don't really have anything else to say."
Excellent. This is the best news I've heard all day.
I like what Frank Herbert wrote in /Children of Dune/: "Governments, if they endure, always tend increasingly toward aristocratic forms. No government in history has been known to evade this pattern. And as the aristocracy develops, government tends more and more to act exclusively in the interests of the ruling class -- whether that class be hereditary royalty, oligarchs of financial empires, or entrenched bureaucracy."
yeah good one
Brian Herbert on the other hand writes like a guy reading a comic book to you
We have the mechanisms in place to protect against that trend.
Too bad we don't have the cultural integrity to educate our children, value education, or know wisdom when it punches us in the face. Save me government! I'm inept and require your assistance! I'll bankrupt my kids, just promise me lots of stuff!
But cultural integrity, is, like, telling people, like, they are guessing wrong, like, you know, like you know, what, right and, uh, wrong, is, like, you don't know, better, than they do, so, like, you, shouldn't tell them, they can't do whatever, so, if somebody says, they know, what is right, and what is wrong, for everybody, then, they're the ones who are wrong! and like everybody should gang up on them, cause, whatever you know could be right, except that. The integrity of culture, is like, for sure, wrong. Belch.
I love all this "get out the vote" garbage.
If you don't know a damn thing about politics, philosophy, or--most of all--history, face it: You probably shouldn't vote.
If you don't know that you have the right to vote, face it: You probably shouldn't vote.
If you need a tax-funded campaign to tell you about voting and how you can do it, face it: You probably shouldn't vote.
There's no inherent virtue in a high % voter turnout, in general or for any minority group. You could get 100% of people who have absolutely no interest in ever being productive or getting off of government assistance to show up and vote. But that wouldn't be a good thing.
hell we apparently need advertising to tell people to get on food stamps
now this is something where Romney's expertise will kick in
hire people to advertise food stamps
hire people to change the food stamp card every month to deter fraud
hire people to investigate fraud
hire people to handle the roar of customer service complaint
hire a commission to study reform
What Romney 100% will not do, is propose a restructuring of government assistance to actually help people, rather than reward dependence in exchange for votes.
I wouldn't have a problem giving more money in aid to people if it was aimed at training/education so they could find work, or more productive/rewarding work. I wouldn't have a problem giving more money in aid to people with children if it didn't reward them for having more and more and more kids even after they got on government assistance.
But all of our assistance is designed to buy votes, not help people. It supports ever-growing federal and state bureaucracy, rather than subsidizes those with needs in a free market. It rewards irresponsibility and punishes responsible behavior. Shocking surprise: Behavior has gotten worse, and people have become less responsible, since these programs were created and expanded.
This is why I lean Libertarian. Because, on this issue as with many others, Republicans--at least in any quantity to ever get anything passed--usually have the same views as Democrats. It's a whole lot of don't rock the boat, status quo got me into office, let's ride this thing as long as we can!
And this is why I have no respect for you intellectual cowards and dumbasses raised poorly to think your opinion is always equal to mine. I have history and common sense on my side when I say that free markets are good for absolutely everyone. And you've got nothing but naive, stupid, childish idiocy on your side when you dream ooooo, communism is the best, it takes care of everyone! <3 You have every right to your opinion and to voice it, if you're arrogant enough to not recognize your ignorance and naivete. But you don't have any right to respect, which such ignorant, cowardly, and evil nonsense does not deserve.
> Acolyte wrote:
> I like what Frank Herbert wrote in /Children of Dune/: "Governments, if they endure, always tend increasingly toward aristocratic forms. No government in history has been known to evade this pattern. And as the aristocracy develops, government tends more and more to act exclusively in the interests of the ruling class -- whether that class be hereditary royalty, oligarchs of financial empires, or entrenched bureaucracy."
This is very true. Nice quote Acolyte...
"We have the mechanisms in place to protect against that trend."
Kemp. These mechanisms have degraded to the point where they "act almost exclusively in the interests of the ruling class."
"cultural integrity"
Culture - there is an inverse relationship between tyranny and culture: as tyranny increases, culture decreases, and vice versa. When tyrants justify their tyranny based on the notion that cultural integrity of the population has been compromised, the society has already faltered beyond the point of no return down the slippery slope to destruction.
"f you don't know a damn thing about politics, philosophy, or--most of all--history, face it: You probably shouldn't vote."
If the vast majority of a population of a modern democracy for whatever reason are not educated or informed enough to be responsible voters, face it: any government elected by said population is illegitimate.
"free markets are good for absolutely everyone"
Free market? Where? THE FREE MARKET DOESN'T EXIST. There is more evidence to believe inter-breeding between the tooth-fairies and leprechauns result in mini-kemps than there is to believe there is anything even remotely like a "free market" in our current economic climate.
The solution is new technologies and ultra-cheap (if not free) products designed to help individuals fulfill their own basic human needs: shelter, food, clothing. And to do so self-sufficiently without any reliance on any governmental, social or financial system.
Xeno, you sound like one of those Zeitgeist lunatics.
Kemp, your support of the market is admirable. I am curious what keeps you from taking those principles to their logical conclusion, and consider the privatization of government services.
People have noticed that continuing to address politicians by their highest office - Governor Romney, Speaker Gingrich, Ambassador Bolton - reinforces the sense of a noble elite. We don't have equal citizens who sometimes have jobs in government. These people aren't citizens. They have been elevated and we should all remember that forever.
"Xeno, you sound like one of those Zeitgeist lunatics."
So what? Zeitgeist had a lot of good things to say. Granted, some of what they suggested went too far and some not far enough. But that same with any other source, be it the New York Times, National Geographic, academic essays, etc...all of them have some value to the pursuit of truth, but no single one is sufficient.
"Kemp. These mechanisms have degraded to the point where they "act almost exclusively in the interests of the ruling class." "
These mechanisms are a democratic government. I agree our populace has degraded into largely unproductive, ignorant wankers. But the solution to this is a cultural fight against unproductive idiots who vote. The solution isn't to ditch democratic policies because they're not working out great with a dumb population. The solution is to work on that dumb population.
If you disagree, do elaborate as to what you think should replace democratic government?
"If the vast majority of a population of a modern democracy for whatever reason are not educated or informed enough to be responsible voters, face it: any government elected by said population is illegitimate."
That's stupid. It's not government's role to raise people's kids right. It's not government's job to force people to learn (and retain) history. It's not government's role to force a work ethic on people.
Government's role is to let go of their school monopoly and let students' parents decide where they want their kid to learn. Government's role is to not babysit morons from cradle to grave and let them suffer the consequences of their own bad decisions--This results in better decisions, more productivity, and higher standards of living for all.
"Free market? Where? THE FREE MARKET DOESN'T EXIST."
That's stupid too. While statism corrupts much of it, there's a relatively free market all around you.
"There is more evidence to believe inter-breeding between the tooth-fairies and leprechauns result in mini-kemps than there is to believe there is anything even remotely like a "free market" in our current economic climate."
Are you on drugs? I choose my bourbon in a relatively free market. I have lots of options, because of the relative freedom of the market in which I buy it. I do the same with my non genetically modified organic tortilla chips and delicious salsa. And my car. Sexy flat and wide monitor in front of me. TV next to me. New plants in my garden. And I could go on. And on. And on.
Your notion that our markets are 0% free is just stupid. You're not even presenting an argument. And the notion is just dumb.
"The solution is new technologies and ultra-cheap (if not free) products designed to help individuals fulfill their own basic human needs: shelter, food, clothing. And to do so self-sufficiently without any reliance on any governmental, social or financial system."
Free? Because of the self-replicating robot technology we got from aliens?
xeno, are you on drugs? That technology does not exist. There aren't billions of free homes, foodstuffs, and articles of clothing anywhere to sell or give out "ultra-cheap" or "free." You're making things up which do not exist in reality and pretending your imagination has any bearing on anything. This is why I'm asking, are you on drugs? Because what you're saying literally doesn't make any sense.
Acolyte,
I have strong Libertarian leanings. I'll be voting for Gary Johnson in the fall. I certainly agree that many government "services" should be entirely privatized. I'm certainly open to arguments about privatizing even more than I already support.
If people agree that their community needs a service, they should hire competing people/agencies in a free market to do it. Free markets produce the best results for the least burden on the community paying for them.
I do see a use for some government--a limited and constitutional one, such as we haven't had in more than a hundred years. Because, if EVERYTHING were privatized, we'd still have groups forming for laws and mutual interests which would effectively be government. The key is to keep government that limited, not call it different names.
Free market economic system is usurped by governments world-wide. This is an open, bare, cold, hard fact. They control and manipulate the fundamental aspects their economies: labor, resources, real-estate; thus, because these fundamental aspects of economy are controlled by government, by extension, they manipulate all other aspects of economies. Ex.: their manipulation of resource, affect manufacturing; their control of labor, affect real-estate; their control of real-estate affects finance. Moreover, while espousing values of equality of opportunity, value of human life and dignity, etc., they conspire to use this power to undermine these values: by manipulating these fundamental aspects of the economy in the interest of their continued virtual aristocracy.
Their manipulation is certainly not in the interest of the good, and intelligent individuals of society, because, due to their higher ethics and intelligence, they are often disenfranchised in societies where unintelligent complacency and malevolent conspiracy are financially rewarded more so than hard work, ethics, creativity, innovation.
If economies actually functioned under free-market economic principles, there would be built-in mechanisms which would ensure that it is the ethical, and intelligent of society, the innovative and creative, who actually gain influence over the system. For it would be the most ethical and intelligent of society who would be rewarded most financially, and, therefore, their unselfish, humanitarian interests; their aim to help integrate the vast potential of the most disenfranchised of society rather than themselves, would be the focus of their lobbying of government. Thus by their campaign contributions, the politicians who would afford the marketing campaign required for their successful election to office, would act in the best interest of enuring that the ethical and intelligent would continue to be financially rewarded; that the values of humanitarianism, and equality of opportunity would actually be upheld rather than undermined.
This latter scenario, of course, is not the world we live in...
Why are you wasting our time?
Nobody has argued that government doesn't mess up free markets significantly.
I've simply pointed out that your claim that free markets have been eradicated is ridiculous on its face. They still function to some great degree, hindered by government as they are.
Government's primary effect on most markets is to drastically increase the cost of doing business by drastically increasing cost-of-living and, subsequently, labor costs. Taxes and regulations further increase the cost of living/doing business. The result is things are more expensive and everyone has a bit less. The free market still functions to provide the most it can, despite this increase in costs.
You can vaguely make all the claims you want about how you feel free markets should work. I don't really care.
Shera Bechard, the Canadian-born former girlfriend of Playboy Enterprises founder Hugh Hefner, would not be an obvious candidate for the special visas that the U.S. government reserves for "individuals with extraordinary ability."
Playboy magazine named Bechard Miss November in 2010, and she also started an online photo-sharing craze called "Frisky Friday." Neither seems quite on the level of an "internationally recognized award, such as a Nobel Prize," which the government cites as a possible qualification.
But Los Angeles immigration lawyer Chris Wright argued that Bechard's accomplishments earned her a slot. The government ultimately agreed.
That kind of success has put Wright on the map as the go-to visa fixer for both Hollywood and Silicon Valley. It also highlights the use of so-called genius visas known as O-1s and EB-1s, which have largely escaped political controversy and are now the immigration solution of choice for many entrepreneurs.
As many immigration lawyers see it, the paucity of immigration options for the most entrepreneurial foreigners mean they must use any avenue they can. This approach, along with seeming flexibility in Washington on what constitutes "extraordinary ability," means the O-1 is gaining traction in technology circles. Wider use could ultimately land it in political trouble.
For example, the H-1B visa, which allows employers to hire foreigners temporarily in certain specialized fields like technology, has drawn accusations from union groups and others that companies use it to bring in lower-skilled labor.
The O-1 visa allows individuals of "extraordinary ability" to come to the United States for up to three years, and can be extended. British journalist Piers Morgan used one when he replaced Larry King on his late-night TV show, Wright said.
The EB-1 is similar, but leads to a green card and permanent residency rather than a temporary stay, with "extraordinary ability" being one of the ways to qualify - along with being an outstanding professor or researcher, or a multinational executive.
Foreign entrepreneurs have another option - the Immigrant Investor Program, or EB-5 visa - but it requires a capital investment of at least $500,000 and the creation of at least 10 full-time jobs for U.S. workers.
By contrast, no proof of personal wealth or investment in the United States is required for the O-1 or the EB-1.
There is also no cap on the number of O-1s that the government can award each year; about 12,280 were approved in 2011, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said, up from 9,478 in 2006. It issued about 25,000 EB-1s last year, below their cap of 40,000.
The H-1B is much more popular. Applications hit their annual cap of 85,000 earlier this month.
FALLBACK POSITION
While high-profile artists and entertainers have long used the O-1s, they are now becoming a fallback for businessmen and technologists who cannot get H1-Bs.
Josh Buckley, a 20-year-old British-born entrepreneur and a client of Wright's, is among the new crop of Internet entrepreneurs to win an O-1 visa. He applied after starting a few small companies, including one he sold at age 15 for a sum reaching the low six figures, he says.
He got his O-1 last year after lining up letters of recommendation from luminaries including Netscape co-founder and venture capitalist Marc Andreessen and Apple Inc co-founder Steve Wozniak.
Buckley, whose MinoMonsters gaming company is backed by Andreessen, saw little choice other than the O-1. The H-1B was off limits because it usually does not go to people who work for themselves. The O-1, unlike most H-1Bs, also does not require a college education--a key feature for the ever-younger entrepreneurs flocking to Silicon Valley.
Except when it comes to the O-1, visa officials "just don't understand the concept of someone being skilled without 12 years of experience or a bachelor's degree," says John Collison, a 22-year-old Irishman. He dropped out of Harvard University to work on Stripe, the payments company he co-founded with his brother, Patrick.
Like Buckley, he met Wright through the prestigious Silicon Valley start-up incubator known as Y Combinator. He won his O-1 in December 2010 and now has permanent residency status-- as does Buckley.
Wright, himself a South African immigrant, dismisses the notion that some of his clients might not rise to the level of "extraordinary ability."
"There's nothing in those regulations that requires you to be a genius," he says. "It's quite condescending to say,
Imperial Forum → Politics → Justify Your Government's Legitimacy
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.