The Last Thing We Need is a Great Leader
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Friday, September 19, 2025 16:46
VIEWED: 6995
PAGE 6 of 9
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And still no answer. In fact you have NEVER described any solutions, ever.
Rue your capacity for delusion is truly stunning. We've addressed these issues endlessly on this board. There are a million and one ways to solve these kinds of problems without indulging in your overlord-government fantasies. But you don't want to acknowldedge them, so you just put your fingers in your ears and chant "I can't hear you". It's become such a joke the most of us quit bothering to respond to your childish nonsense long ago.
As a recap to the pages and pages of previous posts that you either didn't read, or were to complex for you to remember, government can be a way to solve many of these problems. But not in the intrusive omnipresent way you prefer. The solution is to punish those creating the problems. Let people do what they want until what they're doing is a problem, them prosecute them for it.
But what you want is to set up oversight that essential requires each of us to ask permission before we do anything, to report our activities to the authorities as a matter of course. You want to treat people as children in need of constant oversight, or worse yet, as criminals to begin with - guilty until proven innocent.
So, on a point-by-point level:
Quote:
pollution
No real argument here. Punish polluters. Make them clean up their mess and if they can't do that, hit them with fines or even criminal penalties to discourage future polluters. Not sure why this is an issue. No libertarian I know is in favor of unabated pollution.
What you might hear about is resistance to micromanagement by government bureaucracies who, rather that going after current polluters, seek to expand their power buy establishing arcane regulations that have only the slimmest connection to real pollution. Again, you're pretending we don't want to do anything about it, when the fact of the matter is, we just disagree with your approach.
Quote:
conservation of resources
Again, a matter of approach. True public resources, like water and air, timber on public lands, etc, should be monitored and conserved by public authorities. We likely disagree on resources that aren't public, largely because you reject the basic tenants of private property in the first place, but the basic idea of conserving the commons is not disputed.
Quote:Much of this thread has been addressing this. Read back a bit.
powerful (ie rich) businesses
Quote:
bad products and imports
Fraud is fraud. If a company sells a product that is dangerous or harmful, and liability can be proven, they should be punished. Once again, its just different approach. You want ubiquitous government oversight, where only established standards and procedure are allowed. I think consumers should have more freedom than that.
Quote:
children
Been over this too. Abuse is abuse and should be prosecuted. But I won't tolerate a government which supersedes parental decisions as a matter of course. Not ignoring the problem, just rejecting your premise that parents need permission from the government to make decisions for their children.
Strawman my ass. You just don't read. Or, rather don't like what you read and pretend you never saw it. It's almost comical. But annoying too.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Citizen
Quote:
Are you talking to me? Because I got the response. If not could you direct your comments please?
No, not you Cit - that's aimed at Rue, cause I am damn sick and tired of addressing topics and then told I never did, having the clearly stated position I DID take misrepresented, and then flamed for things someone else said which wind up attributed to me cause folk just lump everyone disagreeing with them in one category and don't have the common damn decency to consider them, and address them as, individuals.
While not the only one here who's done that, Rue is certainly the worst offender for it, and since other than plain stupidity, the only other explaination for it is outright malice, it stands to reason I'd be pretty damn annoyed with it by now, yes ?
In response to your own take - while removing Government would solve a lotta issues, time and time again I done said folk ain't ready for that, not yet...
BUT, removing Governments endless protection of corporate chicanery would be a cursed good start, it may not be the only problem with reining in corporate power, but it's for damn sure the worst here in the US.
Rue
Quote:
like in Somalia ? Afghanistan ? How's that working for them ?
Lemme repeat, once again, Somalia is the end product *OF* Governments, once they run out of resources to consume and proceed to fight amongst themselves for the scraps that remain, that kind of petty warlordism can only come to rise on a disarmed populace to begin with which Government usefully provided, and in the end, such petty warlordism is the crucible in which Government is usually formed, they're just more honest about it.
To ME, there is no difference between "Do this or we'll initiate violence against you!" coming from a petty warlord, or a city council member - the only real difference is the amount of potential force behind it, because you might just get away with capping the warlord and sending his troops in retreat.
The original US Government was not formed that way, and thus is a comparitive rarity historically, having it's original basis on the consent of the governed, which is why even Madison pointed out that you cannot force armed folk to do your bidding - but we have over time fallen to the base and degraded concept of using force haven't we ?
What makes us so much better, ehe ?
A petty warlord might blow you away for target practice, but then, a SWAT team with the wrong address might kill you too, yes ?
And I doubt the warlord gives a fuck whether your garage is four inches wider than the building code specifically allows for...
As for Afghanistan, between us and the Russians, since when have they really been able to have a Government not propped up by some outside faction to begin with ?
And they've a right to the Government they want, oppressive and dickheaded that the Taliban were, if they were absolutely intolerable, the Afghanis themselves would have kicked the living shit out of them just like they did to the Russians, and just like they do to us whenever we leave our heavily fortified safe zones.
In fact, you might well cite Afghanistan as a place where Government only exists on the peoples tolerance of it, and maybe if outside influences got the fuck out of their business and their country, perhaps they might wind up with a decent one... or not, but that choice is THEIRS, in the past twenty years they've kicked the crap out of any Gov they were not willing to tolerate, and I don't see that changin any time soon.
And if you wish to doubt the strength of those bonds between people in the absence of a nitpickery Government, find a Pashtun and try telling HIM that, he could probably use a good laugh.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sarge keeps stealin my thunder on the rest of it, but he's been way more polite and articulate about it than I woulda, so he's welcome to it.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
but then failed to post the many instances where government intervened on behalf of its citizens.
That's cause there are not any.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_strikes
Tell you what, pull out your history books and find me one, I repeat ONE, single strike, walkout, sit-down, what have you, where the US Military came in shooting, to protect the workers.
Find me ONE.
You do that, and we'll talk - till then, we're done talkin.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"your overlord-government fantasies ... the intrusive omnipresent way you prefer ... what you want is to set up oversight that essential requires each of us to ask permission before we do anything ... You want ubiquitous government oversight ... your premise that parents need permission from the government to make decisions "
Why are you putting words in my mouth ?
My ENTIRE premise is that government is an effective means by which a community of people solve collective problems. The hitch - it only works if the people agree to abide by community decisions.
Do you have a problem with that ? If you do, then you have a problem with democracy.
"Punish polluters." Good, we agree.
"... seek to expand their power buy establishing arcane regulations that have only the slimmest connection to real pollution." I wonder what you consider 'real pollution'. Might it be ppm (part per million) lead in such low concentrations you can't see it, smell it or taste it, and which permanently damages fetal and young brains ? Or does it have to be belching black smoke to be 'real pollution' ?
Aside from that, I have a question for you - what is your basis for such a law ?
US law is based on monetary damages - you have to show monetary damage to individuals - usually health risk - to even consider an anti-pollution law. That is why, for example, only a handful of the 70,000 man-made chemicals in use today have ever been tested (let alone regulated). Somebody has to show damages first before the process even gets started. And remember how long the chemical industry stalled the process on PCBs ? Demandng 100% proof as a legal dodge ?
And what if the problem is not one chemical, or two, but the mix of chemicals made by different companies for different uses - that just happen to come together in your body to create havoc ? For example by causing cancer, or autism, or turning boys into girls ?
What about noise, shown to increase death rates from heart disease in women ? Is it 'real pollution' ? Is that something that should be regulated ?
How does your system account for pollution run amok (as it has) in a better way ?
"True public resources, like water and air, timber on public lands, etc, should be monitored ..." We agree.
What about species ? Are they a public resource even if on 'private' land ? Do they deserve protection from extinction ?
What about zoning ? Do people have the right to enjoy quiet in their homes and yards without listening to (and smelling and tasting) the foundry next door ?
"powerful (ie rich) businesses" ... "Much of this thread has been addressing this."
If you mean that corporations should not be granted personhood, I couldn't agree more. If you think that it will magically make the imbalance of power between them and their immediate community go away, I couldn't disagree more. Corporations - and even large businesses - are delocalized entities - neither dependent on, nor answerable to, nor controllable by, their local communities.
"You want ubiquitous government oversight, where only established standards and procedure are allowed."
No, I see them as a bare minimum.
"Not ignoring the problem, just rejecting your premise that parents need permission from the government to make decisions for their children."
First of all I'd like to highlight what I see as an 'ownership' attitude toward children.
Second, you have a strange idea of a society which never existed. Communities make decisions for parents ALL THE TIME. - especially the least developed, most isolated kind you fantasize over. What language will you speak ? With which hand do you eat ? What foods will be served ? What roles will the household members fill ? When are the children married ? With whom ? How ? How far behind the man does the woman walk ?
You are wrong to think community influence stops at your door, that it ever has, or that it ever will.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Do you have a problem with that ? If you do, then you have a problem with democracy.
I do indeed. So did the founders of our country. That's why they sought to limit's its effects. They really only saw it as a useful way to choose our representatives. They certainly weren't promoting the current popular conception of "majority rule", where 51% of voters dictate how the rest of us must live. The core theme of the Constitution was to establish clear limits on government authority, regardless of the will of he majority. If you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with the fundamental structure of our nation.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The framers limited authority over - not services for. Though I do wish they'd put in a 'right to privacy' in their Bill of Rights.
If you listen Ron Paul, btw, you will find he really only cares about Federal government. The state governments can be as intrusive as the voters wish to make them. Who you sleep with, what kind of sex you have, what you read ... that kind of thing.
And I would like an answer to this - Why are you putting words in my mouth ?
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The framers limited authority over - not services for.
Their genius was in realizing these are two sides of the same coin.
Quote:
Though I do wish they'd put in a 'right to privacy' in their Bill of Rights.
The unreasonable search and seizure bit oughta cover it, but I'd definitely be in favor of more explicit language. Write it up!
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Their genius was in realizing these are two sides of the same coin."
Now you're putting words in THEIR mouths !
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
If you listen Ron Paul, btw, you will find he really only cares about Federal government. The state governments can be as intrusive as the voters wish to make them. Who you sleep with, what kind of sex you have, what you read ... that kind of thing.
I'm not really in the business of defending Ron Paul. I disagree with him on plenty. But you're misrepresenting him here. He's a national politician, so local stuff isn't his concern. He expresses preference for local government solutions because knows that unrealistic programs are less likely to fly there - the waste and injustice are too obvious so close to home.
Quote:
And I would like an answer to this - Why are you putting words in my mouth ?
I'm just trying to make sense out of what you're saying. It ain't easy. Gimme points for trying anyway. :)
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME