Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

Josh Cryer · 2005-06-27 06:47:34

Try getting a job in a "locally owned business" that pretty much has had the same employees for decades. It's very unlikely. These businesses may buy from locally owned retailers and such, but in the end, they are closed economic systems. Lady who owns a resturant for 20 years has the same employees, buys food from the same retailers, even has the same customers. The benefit to the local economy is unchanging, though it helps those within the circle, it does nothing to help those who move there or are there for whatever reason (ie, it cannot grow). This is quite apparent in the conditions of the minorities in that town, the Wal-Mart being the only place to work (outside of fast food, which, from personal experience, is not an easy job).

It took my brother a year to get a job in that town, and even then, his first job was 20 miles away, he got lucky (because he's a veteran) and managed to get a job on the army base (5 miles away).

Make no mistake, I never once suggested that corporations were good, beneficial does not mean good. The minorities that work at the Wal-Mart are not in a good cycle, they'll work their and shop there the rest of their lives. To me that is not good.

(Yes I'm just being anal about that particular point, but bah!)

clark · 2005-06-27 06:59:08

Try getting a job in a "locally owned business" that pretty much has had the same employees for decades.

Or imagine you are one of those employee’s and have a bit of job security… your quality of life tends to improve if you feel more secure in your job. How much job security do people at Wal-mart have when they can be replaced by anyone?

These businesses may buy from locally owned retailers and such, but in the end, they are closed economic systems.

Closed? Then the money stays in the town, how is that bad? Wal-Mart siphons off the money to some anonymous family on Wall Street. Instead of several families, each with their own business, each reaching for a slice of the American Dream, you have Wal-Mart, an all encompassing behemoth. Sure, efficiency is wonderful, but it does have a price.

Besides, closed economic systems go hand in hand with your insane ideas of self-sufficiency. :laugh:

The benefit to the local economy is unchanging, though it helps those within the circle, it does nothing to help those who move there or are there for whatever reason (ie, it cannot grow).

A low wage job with few benefits and little room for advancement helps those who move to the area? How?

You end up trading a future for living hand to mouth.

This is quite apparent in the conditions of the minorities in that town, the Wal-Mart being the only place to work (outside of fast food, which, from personal experience, is not an easy job).

Wal-Mart is like fast food, except you ain’t slinging hash.

Make no mistake, I never once suggested that corporations were good, beneficial does not mean good. The minorities that work at the Wal-Mart are not in a good cycle, they'll work their and shop there the rest of their lives. To me that is not good.

I wasn’t making a mistake, I was just poking fun. They are beneficial, except when they are not. :laugh:

Josh Cryer · 2005-06-27 07:31:32

Closed? Then the money stays in the town, how is that bad?

The money doesn't stay "in the town," it stays "in the hands of those who have it." That's fine and dandy, but it doesn't help the rest of the townsfolk, the minorities especially. Last time I was there I had the most remarkable example of very real racism I have ever encountered (this is in Southern Alabama, btw). I was over at my youngest brothers, having a cigarette (heh, took up that bad habit a little while ago, I'll stop one of these days). And a black man came up to me to bum one off of me, then asked if I would accompany him to a locally owned resturant across the street because they "don't like black people in there." I thought he was BSing, that perhaps he might have been trying to con me out of a meal (he did, after all, just bum a cigarette off of me), but being the curious type that I am, and not really caring too much, I joined him. Why not, he knew about cars (his was broken and he was working on it in the parking lot), and I was having motorcycle trouble, so it was just something to get the engines ticking in my head. We go into the resturant and though he was ahead of me (in fact, I was trailing by some distance), I was addressed first, given a list of specials before I could interject and say "I'm with him." He shook his head slightly and gave me a look, indicating that that's how "they're" always treated there. He got some beakfast, had a decent amount of money in his wallet (the bumming of the cigarette then could've just been a conversational gesture, or simply because his car was broken and the nearest gas station is a mile or two away). Got me a cup of coffee even though I don't particularly drink it (though he offered more). We talked about cars as we sat there and he ate, his service being less than steller, with my own interaction with the waitress being far more enjoyable. I was actually embarrassed about the whole thing, because it just was so ridiculous. He could've went to the McDonalds about 3 miles away and got perfectly fine service, or the Taco Bell or Hardee's (of course, they're all black employee's in those stores, so why wouldn't he?).

This is sort of going on a tangent here, but that's how it works. They're microcasms of economics. "They" look out for themselves. Corporations are blind, they don't care who they're looking out for. McDonalds is owned by a local, all fast food stores as far as I understand, in fact. The benefit is local, but they have hiring quotas, and rules that cannot be blindly ignored because complaints will be made and the corporation will inflict sanctions on those who do not follow the rules.

Besides, closed economic systems go hand in hand with your insane ideas of self-sufficiency.

Sure, they're great. It's good actually. I'm glad for them. They are self-sufficient as far as they are concerned. But what about everyone else? Remember my "insane ideas of self-sufficiency"? What was one of the key aspects of everything I used to talk about? That of benefitting everyone. What's the point of self-sufficiency if everyone can't be or isn't that way?

A low wage job with few benefits and little room for advancement helps those who move to the area? How?

Better than being homeless? We have to play the hand dealt with us. People don't chose to be poor. People are born that way (though admittely people screw their lives up). The primary benefecaries of the Wal-Mart are the minorities who cannot get jobs in the locally owned businesses. It's not as black and white as you try to make it seem.

Wal-Mart is like fast food, except you ain’t slinging hash.

Just rephrasing what I said?

I wasn’t making a mistake, I was just poking fun. They are beneficial, except when they are not.

There's more like it.

Josh Cryer · 2005-06-27 07:34:51

Then again, given my experience... perhaps it is "black and white." :down:

Palomar · 2005-06-27 08:47:38

"Corporations are evil" is a political position, imho. But in any case, I was just saying that there are situations where they can be beneficial. I am by no means saying that they are generally speaking.

*Hi Josh. I said I believe a lot of corporations are evil. Not intended to be a blanket statement; not intended to mean *all*.

Some corporations are more *other*-responsible than their more rapacious counterparts. Yes, some of them can even do some good here and there.

But overall, I don't trust even the good-appearing ones all that much.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-27 09:03:53

Some corporations are more *other*-responsible than their more rapacious counterparts. Yes, some of them can even do some good here and there.

It is worth noting that corporations are merely the tools of people. If a majority of corporations are "evil" then it follows that a majority of people are essentially evil.

Greed is universal. Is succeeding in one's greedy ambitions more evil than failing in them?

The real question is what is the alternative to corporations? Various forms of worker-owned cooperatives have had varied degrees of success, but that isn't a universal answer. A worker-owned business has the same built-in hindrance as a democratic country, over the short term it improves conditions for the majority but hinders rapid and dramatic change happening due to inability to get a consensus, often leading over time to loss of marketshare and eventual closing down of a business or decline of a state.

It seems that perhaps the best approach would simply be one of adjusting the regulations currently in place to watch big business a bit more closely while not weighing so heavy on small business. This would require significant political reform to work, merely banning corporate contributions does no good and has some thorny Constitutional issues as well. As it stands, big business can usually get their way by influencing positively or negatively a few Congressmen.

Just maybe the answer to curbing those "evil" corporations is
to curb the power of that ultimate of "evil corporations", the US Federal Government.

Palomar · 2005-06-27 09:40:52

It seems that perhaps the best approach would simply be one of adjusting the regulations currently in place to watch big business a bit more closely while not weighing so heavy on small business. This would require significant political reform to work, merely banning corporate contributions does no good and has some thorny Constitutional issues as well. As it stands, big business can usually get their way by influencing positively or negatively a few Congressmen.
Just maybe the answer to curbing those "evil" corporations is
to curb the power of that ultimate of "evil corporations", the US Federal Government.

*Wow. You have a really good mind. I'm often left...a bit speechless.

That seems very reasonable...and despite my cynicism.

-*-

Regarding the recent news that Pres. Bush has invited reporters to go and visit Guantanamo:

Reddragon: I doubt the reporters will be invited to wander about the base and prison as they like. They'll be on a guided tour showing them what the military has decided is safe for them to see. Thus the allegations will not be confirmed or denied. Bush will say I showed you, we have nothing to hide. His opponents will point out that something could be hiding in what wasn't shown. If someone asks to see something they haven't been shown, they'll be told that would compromise national security. If Bush is finally allowing more media access to the place that's good, but I doubt he's going to suddenly become a big fan of open government.

Yes. And so doesn't the media ultimately "win"? On the basis of "repeat something enough times and people will believe it"? And they also know they can rely on skepticism/distrust that anything would truly be uncovered.

Regardless, he did make the gesture. Some people were certain even that would never happen.

I still think a lot of the criticism of Guantanamo is overstated and those prisoners likely are being treated rather well. If for no other reason than the Bush Admin won't risk another horrible, unforgiveable situation like Abu Ghraib.

--Cindy

clark · 2005-06-27 10:21:10

Just maybe the answer to curbing those "evil" corporations is to curb the power of that ultimate of "evil corporations", the US Federal Government.

You call for regulating big business, yet summarily call for curbing the power of the federal government.

You can't have it both ways. Or is a bunch of brown shirts going to sit outside the CEO's office and beat him senseless anytime some old people lose their pensions?

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-27 10:38:20

You call for regulating big business, yet summarily call for curbing the power of the federal government.

Perhaps "regulate" was the wrong choice of words. What I mean to say is that we should punish criminal activity whenever uncovered with equal severity, whether a burglar steals your TV or a CEO loots company funds.

The federal government encourages the sort of corporate abuses we see today by being a single entity that can allow or disallow activity. Grease a few Congressmen to pass or not pass a specific law and it affects the entire country. If we followed the framework of our Constitution that wouldn't be the case, the fed would only have narrowly defined interstate commerce powers and everything else would be decentralized. A corrupt corporation would have to work on lobbying 50 state legislatures in unison instead of one already-corrupt federal Congress overstepping it bounds. Most likely it would be more profitable for the corrupt CEO of such a company to simply not be corrupt and avoid losing those markets.

Corruption only happens when it's easier than making equal profit through legitimate means.

Further, if we returned to the tradtional American, self reliant "freedom with responsibility" way of handling things we'd have to get rid of the entire concept of corporate pension plans so there would be nothing to loot and no dependent employees to be screwed. Just pay people up front, suggest wise strategies then let people do as they will with their own money.

Sure, some people will make bad investments (just like pension plans do), some will neglect to save anything, some will just blow it all on liquor and prostitutes. Freedom with responsibility.

After all, if the average citizen is too damn stupid and impulsive to handle their own life's details only a fool would allow such dolts to vote and imperil the entire nation. :;):

clark · 2005-06-27 10:53:00

Grease a few Congressmen to pass or not pass a specific law and it affects the entire country. If we followed the framework of our Constitution that wouldn't be the case, the fed would only have narrowly defined interstate commerce powers and everything else would be decentralized.

If we followed the framework of the Constitution, corrupt congressmen wouldn't be congressmen.

You identify a problem, then avoid the solution.

If Congress is the problem because it is corrupt, why not try to solve that problem, as opposed to setting the clock back?

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-27 11:07:48

If Congress is the problem because it is corrupt, why not try to solve that problem, as opposed to setting the clock back?

One, I don't consider adhering to the US Constitution to be "setting the clock back."
Two, cutting the power wielded by Congress back to its Constitutional limits is a big part of the solution. Hold Congress back into its enumerated powers and candidates can't promise to funnel nearly as much to their home district. They will have less power in their hands and there will be much less incentive for other entities to throw money and favors at them.

I know, less government instead of more is counter-intuitive to the conditioning of most Americans these days, but there it is.

Palomar · 2005-06-27 11:12:13

One, I don't consider adhering to the US Constitution to be "setting the clock back."

:laugh:

Two, cutting the power wielded by Congress back to its Constitutional limits is a big part of the solution. Hold Congress back into its enumerated powers and candidates can't promise to funnel nearly as much to their home district. They will have less power in their hands and there will be much less incentive for other entities to throw money and favors at them.
I know, less government instead of more is counter-intuitive to the conditioning of most Americans these days, but there it is.

Agreed.

--Cindy

clark · 2005-06-27 11:30:52

One, I don't consider adhering to the US Constitution to be "setting the clock back."

So only land owning white men can vote. Or blacks counted as 2/3rds of a white man. That isn't setting the clock back?

I know, I'm being unfair.

But your ideas, while on the surface are beguiling, deeper down they are big stinking pile of horse- well, you get the idea.

I can understand your desire to dismantle the Federal Government, you are a closet libertarian (albeit with some twisted ideals) who believes in rugged individualism and a strong measure of punishment for those who choose poorly for themselves.

All a product of a belief that a harsher life makes better people. Whatever. You have your ideal for making society one way, just like the liberal's you complain about who want to remake society.

But anyway, dismantling the federal government as you suggest would reduce the ability of a centralized government to regulate and affect global corporations. Deferring this control to individual states would only compound the issue because large corporations, with resources and revenues far in excess of most state governments could effectively play one state off another, or bribe smaller state officials for peanuts.

Environmental protection would be a joke, again because of the relative sizes of the Enron's versus small, individual states.

For all your background, you failed to remember the one piece of American History that should teach you better: "Hang together, or hang separately."

A strong central government is in our best interest given the world we live in. Corrupt officials are not. Solve that problem if you want to fix things. Doing as you suggest though is pretending that the world should be other than it is.

reddragon · 2005-06-27 11:35:09

we should punish criminal activity whenever uncovered with equal severity, whether a burglar steals your TV or a CEO loots company funds.

Definitely. We also need to revise how we punish them. I don't care as much if a corrupt CEO (or a burglar) goes to jail as I do if he pays back everything he took plus legal fees to the victims. (Probably a bit more than he took to cover all the hassle and deter him from doing it again.) Actually I think in a malicious sort of way I'd much rather see a corrupt CEO lose his fortune and have to go work at McDonald's than spend a little time sitting in jail and then return to his wealthy life.

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-27 12:23:08

[color=000066:post_uid0]

I can understand your desire to dismantle the Federal Government, you are a closet libertarian (albeit with some twisted ideals) who believes in rugged individualism and a strong measure of punishment for those who choose poorly for themselves.
[/quote:post_uid0]
First off, I'm not saying we [i:post_uid0]dismantle[/i:post_uid0] the federal government. I'm saying we should [i:post_uid0]restore[/i:post_uid0] it to what it was designed to be. Second, I'm not saying people should be [i:post_uid0]punished[/i:post_uid0] for their poor choices, though I [i:post_uid0]am[/i:post_uid0] saying that people should not be punished for the poor choices of others as is currently the case. I'm not unsympathetic to those who make poor choices, but I do believe that family and private charity are usually better ways of ameliorating it than centralized government micro-managing.
Have to clear up the false assumptions you make before proceeding with argument.
All a product of a belief that a harsher life makes better people. Whatever. You have your ideal for making society one way, just like the liberal's you complain about who want to remake society.
[/quote:post_uid0]

When people get too soft and lazy, yes, then I believe a little hardship is good overall. In no way should that be taken to imply that I believe we should all have harsher lives, barely hanging on, indefinately.
As for remaking society, those [i:post_uid0]liberals I complain about[/i:post_uid0] are trying to make something greatly at odds with the ideas behind the founding of this country while claiming just the opposite. I'd rather stick with what worked reasonably well before we screwed it all up instead of replicating what has repeatedly failed to deliver as promised.
But anyway, dismantling the federal government as you suggest would reduce the ability of a centralized government to regulate and affect global corporations.[/quote:post_uid0]
Would it? As it presently stands, that centralized government and global corporations are intertwined. They're in [i:post_uid0]congress[/i:post_uid0] if you will, and I don't mean a legislative assembly. :;):
You appear to be operating under the illusion that government protects our interests against those corporations. The reality I'm afraid is that government has its own interests and they are more closely aligned with big business than with little Joe Public. Centralized government facilitates those corporations more than it hinders them, whereas state governments are on average more responsive to the citizens.
Is it easier to fight one grown man or fifty angry midgets?
Deferring this control to individual states would only compound the issue because large corporations, with resources and revenues far in excess of most state governments could effectively play one state off another, or bribe smaller state officials for peanuts.
[/quote:post_uid0]
Which they'd have to do hundreds of times over, and those officials would be dealt with by their constituents. Sure it isn't perfect and there is still potential for abuse, but makes it harder for corporations to influence policy nation-wide and it has the added bonus of slicing some of the fat off that federal beast we've been living with. It doesn't even preclude the possibility of national regulation, it merely makes it harder for corporations to influnce policy by greatly multiplying the number of palms they'd need to grease. There comes a point when it just makes more sense to be legit.
I doubt it would take much to get the states to agree to hold the board of directors responsible for financial fraud either. Self-interest is a powerful motivator. That coupled with difficulty in circumventing such requirements (corporations form at the state level, remember) by removing the over-arching federal government and fraud will be much more risky with much lower return and more people watching for it. Get away from this dependent mentality with the pension plans and there will be less to steal and far fewer to get hurt should it occur.
Environmental protection would be a joke, again because of the relative sizes of the Enron's versus small, individual states.
In many cases enviromental protection is already a joke. A mix of nonsensical regulations, crippling red tape to comply and widespread corruption to circumvent it defeat the purpose. We can't do much worse than we have. Perhaps having such things regulated more by people who live relatively close would prove more effective?
For all your background, you failed to remember the one piece of American History that should teach you better: "Hang together, or hang separately."
[/quote:post_uid0]
But as you well know, it does not require that we submit to one central authority in all matters.
A strong central government is in our best interest given the world we live in. Corrupt officials are not. Solve that problem if you want to fix things. Doing as you suggest though is pretending that the world should be other than it is.[/quote:post_uid0]
What else can be said? You appear to be operating under the assumption that government is the answer. I'm more inclined to believe that government is at best a medication with serious side effects. Don't take it unless you really need it.
I'm not convinced we do, and those side effects are nasty.
Strong central government concentrates power and in so doing tends to foster corruption. Fixing that is an integral part to solving the problem of corruption. The other viable approach to concentrate power tightly in the hands of [i:post_uid0]uncorruptable individuals[/i:post_uid0], but the record with that approach is a little spotty.[/color:post_uid0]

Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.

Offline

Like button can go here

#41 2005-06-27 12:41:17

reddragon

Banned

From: Earth

Registered: 2005-01-24

Posts: 193

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

As for remaking society, those liberals I complain about are trying to make something greatly at odds with the ideas behind the founding of this country while claiming just the opposite.
Quite possible, but so are Bush and his neo-conservatives, and since they're in control of government they're actually doing it -- a lot more dangererous than what any liberals are doing at the moment. I consider myself a moderate liberal but not a follower of any party. On average I like the Democrats better than the Republicans, but neither party is perfect. I think we should have listened to Washington's farewell address: "Beware the baneful spirit of party."
I'm more inclined to believe that government is at best a medication with serious side effects. Don't take it unless you really need it.
I tend to agree. The problem is that everyone has different ideas about when it's necessary. If we consult all the doctors and take all their advice, we end up taking the medicine an awful lot.
The other viable approach to concentrate power tightly in the hands of uncorruptable individuals, but the record with that approach is a little spotty.
The only uncorruptable individuals are those who are already corrupted.
On the whole there's a lot I like about your economic plan and a lot I don't like. And I'm still unsure how much the government should watch out for people and how much it should just make them suffer the consequences of their actions.

Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun.
-The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
by Douglas Adams

Offline

Like button can go here

#42 2005-06-27 12:47:01

clark

Member

Registered: 2001-09-20

Posts: 6,375

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

You appear to be operating under the assumption that government is the answer.
As are you. :laugh:
Where as I suggest that we review the ways and means of holding our federal government and our representatives of the federal government accountable to a greater degree, you suggest that since State government is more responsive to their constituency, we should transfer authority to them. In both instances, we are advocating for government intervention to help manage our lives. We just differ on which government! :laugh:
Now, real quick, name me your State and local representatives. Who is on your city council? What are their personal stances?
Even assuming you could answer it, most could not. Local elections, by and large, are a joke. You end up with low paid part timers who can easily be bribed or seduced just like any other politician.
You think breaking up the situation will make it any better? How? Right now, huge corporations retain teams of lobbyists. Even if it is more difficult logistically, it will still be done. And you end up pitting state against state as one group cries foul over another group, but some State is in the pocket of some company and protects the company form the other state.
What’s next, we break out the militias and settle it as we did during the Articles of Confederation?
I don’t begrudge you your point of view, but I am of the opinion (not because I think it is necessarily better) that things are the way they are because time and experience helped shape the current system. I’m kind of glad that we don’t have the same system as our fore-fathers. I wouldn’t be able to vote if we did. Cindy over there wouldn’t be allowed to talk (a debatable advance, I grant you), and we could all settle our differences with duels.
I think there is room for improvement, but I don’t think we need to radically change anything here, or go back to the way things once were. We can’t go back because too much has changed. The world is much bigger, events happen much faster, and to turn back is to suggest that we have made some serious mistake, when that clearly is not the case.
How can I justify that? Well, more people are better off than before. That is a measure of progress. I don’t see weakening the ability of a centralized government to coordinate national policy in the name of 250 million people as improving the situation of individuals.
I think we are better off at trying to reform our government to reduce corruption and graft, and improve the systems of checks and balances to prevent and mitigate abuse. Local government can’t deal with today’s mega corporation, and so smaller, will be undermined (or forced to join ad-hoc trade groups which is effectively the same thing as a centralized government, except without any accountability to individuals).

Offline

Like button can go here

#43 2005-06-27 12:53:51

Cobra Commander

Member

From: The outskirts of Detroit.

Registered: 2002-04-09

Posts: 3,039

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

Quite possible, but so are Bush and his neo-conservatives, and since they're in control of government they're actually doing it -- a lot more dangererous than what any liberals are doing at the moment.
Can't really argue with that, I've done my share of bashing of the Administration's policies.
But then I'm of the opinion that American liberals and neo-cons are more closely related than either care to admit. :;):
I think we should have listened to Washington's farewell address: "Beware the baneful spirit of party."
Yeah, Washington and those guys said alot of wise things. Too be bad no one much listens anymore.
I tend to agree. The problem is that everyone has different ideas about when it's necessary. If we consult all the doctors and take all their advice, we end up taking the medicine an awful lot.
The doctor's are in the pocket of the pharmaceutical industry.
The only uncorruptable individuals are those who are already corrupted.
In an absolute sense. However (purely as a point of conversation) there are those rare individuals who can wield power without using it against their own citizens. Few and far between, but they exist.
Not really a foundation for a long-term government policy, but not entirely without its place, historically speaking.
On the whole there's a lot I like about your economic plan and a lot I don't like.
Me too.
It's a work in progress.
And I'm still unsure how much the government should watch out for people and how much it should just make them suffer the consequences of their actions.
And such is the debate of our time.

Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.

Offline

Like button can go here

#44 2005-06-27 13:16:29

Cobra Commander

Member

From: The outskirts of Detroit.

Registered: 2002-04-09

Posts: 3,039

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

In both instances, we are advocating for government intervention to help manage our lives. We just differ on which government!
Only I'm cutting one level of government down in the process, reducing the overall burden.
And it falls in with one of my ulterior motives.
Now, real quick, name me your State and local representatives. Who is on your city council? What are their personal stances?
Even assuming you could answer it, most could not. Local elections, by and large, are a joke. You end up with low paid part timers who can easily be bribed or seduced just like any other politician.
Granted, as things are currently structured it doesn't get much attention. Too many levels of government to deal with, local is ignored for the most part. Ideally the kind of reform I've mentioned would draw more attention to those lower levels of government. No guarantees, but then in a republic you sometimes have to trust that the people are paying attention.
<shifty-eyed fascist moves some pieces around>
You think breaking up the situation will make it any better? How? Right now, huge corporations retain teams of lobbyists. Even if it is more difficult logistically, it will still be done.
Of course they'll still retain lobbyists, but it will be more difficult and less productive.
I think we are better off at trying to reform our government to reduce corruption and graft, and improve the systems of checks and balances to prevent and mitigate abuse.
A big part of which is reducing the size of the federal government. Even if we don't put corporate regulation back to the state level, cutting down overall is essential to reduce the corruption in government.
I’m kind of glad that we don’t have the same system as our fore-fathers. I wouldn’t be able to vote if we did. Cindy over there wouldn’t be allowed to talk (a debatable advance, I grant you), and we could all settle our differences with duels.
Non land-owners and women voting are not the same as a grossly expanded federal government meddling in matters it has not Constitutional authority to handle. Those were very specific grievances that were corrected without increasing the size of government, at least directly.
It's bloated and corrupt, cutting out the growth is the first step.
But what the hell, I'd probably be fairly good in a duel.
There is room for compromise here, but at its core the problem with corporate corruption is bound to government corruption. Cut one and you reduce the other. Starting with government just has other benefits as well and is easier to initiate.

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1119899855

Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.

Offline

Like button can go here

#45 2005-06-27 13:38:09

clark

Member

Registered: 2001-09-20

Posts: 6,375

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

Only I'm cutting one level of government down in the process, reducing the overall burden.
And it falls in with one of my ulterior motives.
You cut one level which will only cause another level to expand, and be duplicated throughout each state. You reduce the burden in one instance, but then cause the burden to increase overall. Every state would have to reinvent the same wheel.
Is your ulterior motive to find a job in government at the State level?
Too many levels of government to deal with, local is ignored for the most part. Ideally the kind of reform I've mentioned would draw more attention to those lower levels of government. No guarantees, but then in a republic you sometimes have to trust that the people are paying attention.
Yet your plan would also rely on the premise that each State’s populace would pay attention. Failure in any one state creates problems for other States population as the weak link in the chain is utilized for their loop-holes. At least with a centralized approach, overall, we are not penalized because one particular State fell asleep at the wheel.
Of course they'll still retain lobbyists, but it will be more difficult and less productive.
I doubt it. If I was a lobbyist under your proposed system I would focus my attention on the States that matter, ignore the ones that don’t, play the interests of states against one another, and utilize the two party system (which exists in every state) to get the legislation I need through. The parties then become the choke point to focus and drive at. It also becomes easier to mask what I am doing as a lobbyist as each state is too busy with their own issues to have time to figure out what is going on in other states.
A big part of which is reducing the size of the federal government. Even if we don't put corporate regulation back to the state level, cutting down overall is essential to reduce the corruption in government.
Okay, but reducing size is not the same as reducing scope.
Non land-owners and women voting are not the same as a grossly expanded federal government meddling in matters it has not Constitutional authority to handle. Those were very specific grievances that were corrected without increasing the size of government, at least directly.
You’re right, but those changes increased the scope of government, which you seem to accept. A centralized authority allows us to speak with one voice, carrying the entire weight of all member states. The power is derived by the sum of our parts working together, breaking that up does a disservice (and makes us like the joke called EU).
There is room for compromise here, but at its core the problem with corporate corruption is bound to government corruption.
Concentration of wealth in the hands of the few is destabilizing to our republic, that is the fundamental problem. The problem is compounded based on the disparity in wealth- smaller states cannot compete, and would be undermined when trying to leverage their size against a global corporation. We need the size of the federal government in order to maintain some clout with big business. Such is the way of power relationships. Bleh.

Offline

Like button can go here

#46 2005-06-27 13:57:20

Cobra Commander

Member

From: The outskirts of Detroit.

Registered: 2002-04-09

Posts: 3,039

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

You cut one level which will only cause another level to expand, and be duplicated throughout each state. You reduce the burden in one instance, but then cause the burden to increase overall. Every state would have to reinvent the same wheel.
A possibility, but not a foregone conclusion. States already regulate the hell out of business, whether any given state would do still more would depend on locl factors. I find it unlikely that there would be across the board bloating of states governments (bloated as they are already).
But then, after cutting down the fed I wouldn't say we're done and declare victory. Top down, hacking away.
Yet your plan would also rely on the premise that each State’s populace would pay attention.
Which is never guaranteed. Falls under that "consequences" thing. Some will, some won't.
At least with a centralized approach, overall, we are not penalized because one particular State fell asleep at the wheel.
No, no we're all penalized when the fed falls asleep at the wheel, or increasingly veers off the road intentionally. In that regard, centralization is a negative.
I doubt it. If I was a lobbyist under your proposed system I would focus my attention on the States that matter, ignore the ones that don’t, play the interests of states against one another, and utilize the two party system (which exists in every state) to get the legislation I need through.
Which is essentially what goes on now, only we all pretend otherwise. If nothing else, it makes it more open.
And more expensive, having to send lobbyist to multiple cities instead of one.
But then you should know by now that when I throw something like this out there it's always part of something else. :;):
Reform doesn't end with one issue, it's all about building momentum.
Okay, but reducing size is not the same as reducing scope.
Perhaps not in theory, but often in practice. Meaningful reduction in size requires a reduction in scope. Reduction in scope has its own benefits.
You’re right, but those changes increased the scope of government, which you seem to accept.
Indirectly yes, but not in and of themselves. Let more people vote, so what? It doesn't require an expansion of government in any way except for more volunteer poll workers and larger filing cabinets. It's not comparable to modern "federal sprawl."
We need the size of the federal government in order to maintain some clout with big business. Such is the way of power relationships. Bleh.
And here you just differentiated between size and scope only to equate them again. We can srhink the fed to a shadow of it's current size and with a few well-crafted interstate commerce laws that lean government can have all the clout it requires.

Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.

Offline

Like button can go here

#47 2005-06-27 14:04:11

clark

Member

Registered: 2001-09-20

Posts: 6,375

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

And here you just differentiated between size and scope only to equate them again. We can srhink the fed to a shadow of it's current size and with a few well-crafted interstate commerce laws that lean government can have all the clout it requires.
:laugh:
And who is going to "craft" these laws? The same corrupt government in bed with big buisness?
Maybe the day after your one man revolution. Till then... :laugh:

Offline

Like button can go here

#48 2005-06-28 09:06:24

Cobra Commander

Member

From: The outskirts of Detroit.

Registered: 2002-04-09

Posts: 3,039

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

And who is going to "craft" these laws? The same corrupt government in bed with big buisness?
Unlikely. But then it's no more absurd than expecting reform of any kind from them. If your arguments against my vague proposal are valid, they also destroy hope for any other method of reform that could be undertaken within the system.
It seems we're both in a quandry here.
Now accepting applications for the revoultion. Must have your own firearm, conscience, sense of discretion and witty retorts. Uniforms optional, but recommended to avoid the Gitmo travel package.
Then I'll craft some laws and you can complain about them.

Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.

Offline

Like button can go here

#49 2005-06-28 09:15:05

clark

Member

Registered: 2001-09-20

Posts: 6,375

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

Where as you want to change the system, I would be more than content to throw a wrench into it.
Which is a a way to reform...
We make it your way, someone is unhappy. We make it Bill's way, and other people are unhappy.
Make it so neither gets their way, and we have equality! Which is what I'm all about. :laugh:

Offline

Like button can go here

#50 2005-06-28 09:21:29

Cobra Commander

Member

From: The outskirts of Detroit.

Registered: 2002-04-09

Posts: 3,039

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

With misery and discord for all.
You break it, I'll rebuild it.

Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.

Offline

Like button can go here

Pages: Previous 1 2 3 4 … 15 Next

Topic closed

Index
» Not So Free Chat
» Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

Board footer

Jump to

Atom topic feed

Powered by FluxBB

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-06-27 06:47:34

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#27 2005-06-27 06:59:08

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#28 2005-06-27 07:31:32

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#29 2005-06-27 07:34:51

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#30 2005-06-27 08:47:38

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#31 2005-06-27 09:03:53

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#32 2005-06-27 09:40:52

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#33 2005-06-27 10:21:10

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#34 2005-06-27 10:38:20

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#35 2005-06-27 10:53:00

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#36 2005-06-27 11:07:48

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#37 2005-06-27 11:12:13

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#38 2005-06-27 11:30:52

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#39 2005-06-27 11:35:09

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#40 2005-06-27 12:23:08

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#41 2005-06-27 12:41:17

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#42 2005-06-27 12:47:01

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#43 2005-06-27 12:53:51

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#44 2005-06-27 13:16:29

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#45 2005-06-27 13:38:09

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#46 2005-06-27 13:57:20

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#47 2005-06-27 14:04:11

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#48 2005-06-28 09:06:24

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#49 2005-06-28 09:15:05

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#50 2005-06-28 09:21:29

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

Board footer