View Single Post
Old 11-10-2012, 02:35 AM
Originally Posted by electriclite View Post
And we have a couple things that make a pretty HUGE dent. Its like making a budget, and your cable bill is like $200/mo, but instead of cutting back on that you decide to not to buy the bag of Hershey kisses that costs you $3-$5 a month, or not buy a magazine or two.
The problem is you're ignoring the real problem. Its like you're justifying buying $5,000 worth of candy per month because the Hershey kisses only cost $3-5 a month. "But the kit kats only cost $3... what's the point in cutting that? The gummy bears only cost $2... What's the point in cutting that? The tic tacs only cost $1... What's the point in cutting that? And on and on... How about this novel concept? Cut everything across the board.

I wouldn't even use candy as a metaphor for government. Its more like letting strangers in your house and taking a nickel. Sure a nickel isn't much but if there are 50,000 strangers coming into your house taking a nickel each every month promising they'd put it to good use and you have no other recourse but to give it to them... I dunno I'd start to get pretty pissed after a while.

Police, Army, Courts: government, government, government.
I don't get it. Are you saying our only choice between an anarchist government or Communist government? Or are you falsely suggesting that protection of our property rights isn't libertarian?

Here's the thing, what made us world power was war, innovation, science/technology and consumerism. We're still very good at the first, but like a constantly worn shoe the old proven luster just ain't cutting it like it used to. Innovation? Aside from Apple name me five other commercial innovations that are from this country in the last 12 years? We just had to cut our space program. Meantime South Korea is spearheading cyber-robotics, Germany as well, not to mention natural energies, etc. Where are we at? Congressmen in subcommittees of Space, Science and Technology talking about how The Big Bang Theory is "Straight from Satan". Consumerism? Alive and well but out of control in regards to goods not being made in this country.
During the early 1900's we were more powerful than almost every other nation out there. We just didn't leap from a third world country to a world power in a matter of a few years after a war. It happened gradually over time.

And why hasn't it been cutting it like it used to? Its because of anti-capitalist policies. You throw a monkey wrench into a machine you don't blame the machine you blame whoever threw in the monkey wrench.

Its the reason why I've been saying we haven't been innovating. Of course we're not innovating. Do you think we've actually been getting closer to a pure capitalist nation in the past 12 years? How many billions of dollars go to companies that crush any competition or future competition that would otherwise be more innovative? Expand government more and more and more and keep blaming the "free market". I always laugh when someone thinks its the free market's fault as if there aren't any taxes or intrusive laws.

Consumerism of course is alive. What else are people not going to do? Not consume? The difference is people are having little choice in what they consume when more of their property (their money) is being taken away to be able to choose. Choice is important and government takes away that choice every time.

Many nations are good at producing things but so what? Cuba makes great cigars. Colombia makes great coffee. Russia makes great vodka. Every nation is different but are they funneling all their resources to one industry while destroying other possible innovative industries from being formed? Like if you're not in specific select industries that the people deem to be more important in certain countries then you have no chance of making a really successful new industry in that nation. That is unless you're extremely wealthy enough line the pockets of corrupt government officials to allow it.

If there really was a market desire for a certain type of industry, the government wouldn't need to forcibly take peoples' money to ensure that it thrives. Which means one of two things - the product is either too expensive for its true market value or its simply undesirable. Either way, it's just one example of government inefficiency - ignoring basic price signals in favor of political interests.

What we REALLY have to ask is where did this need for "socialist programs" come from?(which we haven't even really peaked at, that honor goes to the Nixon era). Is it really the obvious answer that a majority of Americans just gave up and decided that the welfare life totally is the way to go? Or maybe, somewhere between the can do attitude of the 1950's and now, we lost not just jobs, but jobs you could raise a family on, and now we have a growing list of jobs that one person can barely support themself with. What's that gonna look like in 10/20/30 years when ? We've had a growth of low-paying jobs in this recession, while mid to high paying have remained virtually unchanged. And no I didn't believe the guy who made a career making money from creating debt and foisting it on to other businesses and selling them off and made the bulk of his fortune off of investments in China was gonna make that any better.
Here's a pretty good indication where a lot of this socialism came from...

“The ideas embodied in the New Deal Legislation were a compilation of those which had come to maturity under Herbert Hoover’s aegis. We all of us owed much to Hoover” (Rexford Tugwell, 1946).

If socialism wasn't alive before Hoover/FDR it certainly turned into a massive monster afterwards.

It is not a matter of thinking outside the box, its actually a very simple idea: Addressing the problem and everyone (or the majority) agreeing that IS the problem. But everyone has a newschannel now that strokes their little heads and tells them "no, no, no the sky truly is purple and all those people who say it isn't are just crazy" and yeah, nothing changes and we have to do the "Band-aid covers bullethole" remedy.
So whatever the majority identifies as the problem that automatically means that's the problem? How do you know the majority will address the problem correctly? The majority in Russia felt that a 99% tax rate was acceptable. The majority in Germany felt that their leader was correct that the Aryan race was superior to all other races. The majority in Europe once felt that if you weren't Catholic you should go to hell. In 1490, the majority would have voted to support the proposition that the Earth is flat.

There is nothing more overrated throughout the course of human history than collective wisdom. Too many people believe that collectivist thinking is an absolute. As if they believe we are some collective enlightened utopia. Like how Xfrog says that Christopher Nolan is the best director of all time because his films have the highest ratings on the IMDB. Now if the majority were libertarian well then that's good because I believe in it not because if they were 'a majority'. The world has been suffering from the tyranny of the majority time after time and more than likely will continue to suffer.