Corruption of Government. Who is to blame?

[Procrustes Stretched]

note: keep this post on top of list



I'll do that later. Maybe start a new thread.

note: keep this post on top of list

With you it will always come down to "we never had purely a free market" so the conversation goes nowhere.

Unless you are willing to acknowledge that for a few decades the developed and developing world's economies were moving towards a free market with free market reforms, we get nowhere. The deregulation and more, of the last 30 years or so are what is commonly understood by the terms 'free market' or 'free market reforms'

You're a stickler on definitions of words, such as "organization" and "government" in this very thread, until it comes to the term "free market."

You're mistaken. I have no problem with the definition of the terms 'free' 'market' or the phrase 'free market' and you know this to be true. What you are avoiding here is the discussion in the real world the free market. Demanding that a free market does not exist and any shape or form unless it is pure is where you stand. It is a stand that is irrational and unreasonable for discussion of the realities on the ground. You are like the Socialist who say we never really had a Socialist state transform into a Communist state because the communism we witnessed was not pure.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

A free market is where the government does not get involved in the economy at all. No regulations, no subsidies, no special favors, etc... etc... Once the government gets involved it's obviously not a free market. When businesses start getting kick backs and special favors from the government we have corporatism.

That is an extreme view not supported by the fathers of the free market idea.

If you're referring to the great plagiarist Adam Smith, then perhaps not. However, the true fathers of free markets and capitalism, such as Richard Cantillon, yes that would be exactly the case.

thank you

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Your arguments would carry weight if they were flushed out, both for and against.

Don't shit yourself because I actually addressed something of yours seriously.

Before I address this post I think you should be made aware of something. Unlike the USMB Pussy Patrol and the USMB Peanut Gallery and the Dante Fevah Fan Club, I rarely ever notice who is posting and who I am posting to. There are a few trolls on the stalk-Dante with-idiotic-insults list, but even with them (you don't rank high enough on the list to catch my attention).

I will usually post a reasonable and rational reply if it is warranted. One need only be privy to those I've pos rep-ed and why, to know this, but alas, I don't give a shit enough about what people like you think to keep a list to prove myself.


I'll address the context of your post in a minute.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

next time you do not link to the post you are quoting I will just ignore you. http://www.usmessageboard.com/congress/133964-corruption-of-government-who-is-to-blame-6.html

Your arguments would carry weight if they were flushed out, both for and against.

Don't shit yourself because I actually addressed something of yours seriously. What precisely do you mean 'FLESHED OUT... for and against?" I'm not for the status quo. Why should I bother producing ideas to maintain it?

The paying for voting thing is interesting. I suspect like all dogooder ideas the law of unintended consequences would make that one a huge joke in record time. .

That's why this is not a 'payment'. It's a refund. If you don't pay taxes, you have no skin in the game and really, I couldn't care less if you vote or not, so you get the least amount of discount off your income taxes. On the other hand, if you pay a lot in taxes, you are obviously making something work in the economy (unless you're a government employee) and therefore deserve a greater break.

Remember this economic fact: Subsidize what you want more of, tax what you want less of. I want more voting, so I subsidize it through a credit, not a payment. They only get to keep more of what they earned.

Big difference. Australia takes another tactic. They fine you for not voting. I feel it's the right of people to be apathetic.



SEIU ring any bells? They are a significant political force that needs it's neck broken. And that's just one. The NEA, is another large corrupt union throwing millions of dollars into elections and funding 'get out the vote drives', and abusing their positions of authority to brainwash their charges in the schools through their members.



Give it a rest. You're condoning bribery now? Even you, Dante, are smarter than that... aren't you?



I did not SAY revert to a confederacy. I am saying decentralize. Move the politicians home and communicate with their committees and debates via electronic methods. That forces lobbying firms and other political miscreants to scatter to all 50 states and breaks up the "Georgetown Cocktail Party Set" as a shitty little Versailles court of the unworthy. The added benefit is that they spend more time directly in front of their constituents feeling the heat for their bad choices. Save them going to Washington except for things too big to do electronically.



When's the last time you heard of a sitting congresscritter go to prison for it? How about never?

So, if I'm a megacorp and bribe officials to look the other way while making another Love Canal in your neighborhood that gives your children and 750 others all leukemia causing them to die in 5 years, they shouldn't be held for directly accountable for mass murder? I think they should be. Then again, the death penalty should be quickly implemented the old fashioned way, firing squad or hanging when convicted of a capital crime (shut the fuck up Bfgrn if you show).

I want politicians scared to death that committing a crime of this type and will be very leery of taking 'gifts' for political influence. Very afraid. Keeps them honest if they can die for it when they have a gun to their head.

Term limits have fucked up places like California.

Proof? The only thing I've seen fucked up are the citizens in every metropolitan area. I can't speak for small town California. What's really fucked them up though now that I think about it has been bailouts from the fed and state bailouts to the municipalities. They need to suffer the consequences of their fucking stupid choices and turn into sewers so people throw the idiots out and never make that mistake again.

but thanks for trying. next time get more specific.

How often do you post stoned? All the time or only 99%?

[IMGttp://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/funny-pictures-cat-had-too-much-catnip.jpg[/IMG]

Corruption of Government. Who is to blame?

Can't believe I'm gonna seriously comment on a Dante thread. :checks hell for snow:

It's all seven.

The good news is that this is at least 50% curable with term limits. Cap the time in a particular office with a lifetime cap on ALL time served as an elected official AND in the bureaucracy.

To end voter apathy, offer a tax credit for voting. a 1-5% credit off their taxes will make a good incentive to vote. The more people voting, the harder it is to corrupt the election.

To end special interest money, make it wide open and totally transparent.

To prevent in office corruption, make bribery or voter fraud for both parties a capital offense.

Next break the incestuous cycle of Media, Politicians, Lobbyists, and Political Action committees by blocking the flow of people back and forth. It can be done by decentralizing government. No need for them to spend so much time in washington when secure electronic communication is possible for some of the business of congress. Keep the politicians among their constituents.

Prevent lobbyists and other corruptive influences from centralizing control into a cesspit like DC and New York (for international corruption)

And lastly, make it illegal to have public sector unions. Unless you make it so that the voters who pay the bill have direct say over what unions get paid like school bonding bills, you have a third party who is not directly affected by bad deals.

But lastly, until you end the entitlement culture, this will not stop. No one is entitled to power, wealth or handouts at the expense of hard working citizens against their will.

Your arguments would carry weight if they were flushed out, both for and against. The paying for voting thing is interesting. I suspect like all dogooder ideas the law of unintended consequences would make that one a huge joke in record time.

Public sector unions? What percentage of the populace is the public sector union vote?

"Prevent lobbyists from exercising their rights under the Constitution or what? You asking for regulation or laws..bigger government?

Decentralizing government? Sorry, the Articles of Confederation were a disaster and decentralizing government is so broad a term as to be meaningless in any context.

Bribery and voter fraud are already illegal. They are not capital offenses and should not be. Why? Sanity.

Term limits have fucked up places like California.

but thanks for trying. next time get more specific.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

...

You state you are against 'the status quo' and then go on to ask why you should 'bother producing ideas to maintain it' and you expect to be taken seriously? No one asked you to produce ideas to maintain any status, quo or no quo.

I wrote:

"Your arguments would carry weight if they were flushed out, both for and against. The paying for voting thing is interesting. I suspect like all dogooder ideas the law of unintended consequences would make that one a huge joke in record time."​

think: Arguments for your ideas and arguments against those you oppose. If you cannot make arguments to back up ideas you put forth, why bother looking for debate?

Your argument in favor of social engineering is interesting:

"To end voter apathy, offer a tax credit for voting. a 1-5% credit off their taxes will make a good incentive to vote. The more people voting, the harder it is to corrupt the election."​

I replied: "The paying for voting thing is interesting. I suspect like all dogooder ideas the law of unintended consequences would make that one a huge joke in record time."

You reply with: "That's why this is not a 'payment'. It's a refund. If you don't pay taxes, you have no skin in the game and really, I couldn't care less if you vote or not..."


I would suggest you take apart what you have written. Others may and if they do you would be surprised what they may come away with.

I wrote: "Public sector unions? What percentage of the populace is the public sector union vote?"

You replied with: "SEIU ring any bells? They are a significant political force that needs it's neck broken. And that's just one. The NEA, is another large corrupt union throwing millions of dollars into elections and funding 'get out the vote drives', and abusing their positions of authority to brainwash their charges in the schools through their members."

Again I ask you to answer "What percentage of the populace is the public sector union vote?"

I write: "Prevent lobbyists from exercising their rights under the Constitution or what? You asking for regulation or laws..bigger government?"
I write this because you wrote: "Next break the incestuous cycle of Media, Politicians, Lobbyists, and Political Action committees by blocking the flow of people back and forth. It can be done by decentralizing government." and "Prevent lobbyists and other corruptive influences from centralizing control..."

Your proposals are so generalized as to be meaningless. We already have progressive organizations that have tried to do much of what you propose. Some rules and laws have been enacted and human nature dictates an end run around them.

The rest of your post sounds like you are the one who is stoned. Electronic government? imagine a shut down of communications during a national crisis.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

http://www.usmessageboard.com/congress/133964-corruption-of-government-who-is-to-blame-3.html Post #33

http://www.usmessageboard.com/congress/133964-corruption-of-government-who-is-to-blame-6.html Post #79

 

[saveliberty]

Strip all of the rules and procedures away from the office of Congressperson. Regardless of lobbyists, corporate money, and whatever, the person in the chair who swore to represent the public faithfully needs to do just that. Personal responsibility, take it with you where ever you go.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Strip all of the rules and procedures away from the office of Congressperson. Regardless of lobbyists, corporate money, and whatever, the person in the chair who swore to represent the public faithfully needs to do just that. Personal responsibility, take it with you where ever you go.

The Congress represents people. It is not about opinion polls and the framers never saw fit to give us the power of plebiscite.

 

[saveliberty]

Strip all of the rules and procedures away from the office of Congressperson. Regardless of lobbyists, corporate money, and whatever, the person in the chair who swore to represent the public faithfully needs to do just that. Personal responsibility, take it with you where ever you go.

The Congress represents people. It is not about opinion polls and the framers never saw fit to give us the power of plebiscite.

I guess if that was what I was talking about you would have a point. Instead you just made a random statement. Focus bitch.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Strip all of the rules and procedures away from the office of Congressperson. Regardless of lobbyists, corporate money, and whatever, the person in the chair who swore to represent the public faithfully needs to do just that. Personal responsibility, take it with you where ever you go.

The Congress represents people. It is not about opinion polls and the framers never saw fit to give us the power of plebiscite.

I guess if that was what I was talking about you would have a point. Instead you just made a random statement. Focus bitch.

It's the topic of the OP and the thread that we post to and about. Making comments about you inane speeches is all I did. At least you realize there is a point you have to agree with if you take yourself at your own word.

 

[saveliberty]

The Congress represents people. It is not about opinion polls and the framers never saw fit to give us the power of plebiscite.

I guess if that was what I was talking about you would have a point. Instead you just made a random statement. Focus bitch.

It's the topic of the OP and the thread that we post to and about. Making comments about you inane speeches is all I did. At least you realize there is a point you have to agree with if you take yourself at your own word.

It is not my problem you can't wrap a mind around the concept of not caving into pressures and payoffs.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I guess if that was what I was talking about you would have a point. Instead you just made a random statement. Focus bitch.

It's the topic of the OP and the thread that we post to and about. Making comments about you inane speeches is all I did. At least you realize there is a point you have to agree with if you take yourself at your own word.

It is not my problem you can't wrap a mind around the concept of not caving into pressures and payoffs.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the idea of corruption of our form of government that has been discussed. Sure some trolls like you have created side threads about the political process, but that is where you all show you are incapable of wrapping your pathetically puny minds around the most basic of concepts -- following a conversation and staying on topic.

Payoffs and pressures you are talking about have everything to do with the political process, and not much about the structure of the system of government. They are mere details that if corrected would do little to fix what supposedly ails the system. It's like stopping the sniffles of a cold and wrongly assuming you've cured the cold. The political process can influence how the system is functioning, but it does not affect the basic structure of the system itself.

Now, if the system is corrupted, who is to blame?

 

[saveliberty]

It's the topic of the OP and the thread that we post to and about. Making comments about you inane speeches is all I did. At least you realize there is a point you have to agree with if you take yourself at your own word.

It is not my problem you can't wrap a mind around the concept of not caving into pressures and payoffs.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the idea of corruption of our form of government that has been discussed. Sure some trolls like you have created side threads about the political process, but that is where you all show you are incapable of wrapping your pathetically puny minds around the most basic of concepts -- following a conversation and staying on topic.

Payoffs and pressures you are talking about have everything to do with the political process, and not much about the structure of the system of government. They are mere details that if corrected would do little to fix what supposedly ails the system. It's like stopping the sniffles of a cold and wrongly assuming you've cured the cold. The political process can influence how the system is functioning, but it does not affect the basic structure of the system itself.

Now, if the system is corrupted, who is to blame?

Are you suggesting we legislate morality into the sytstem? If Congress refused the graft, it would go away all on its own. Only because it works does it continue. People are corrupt, systems have faults.

 

[saveliberty]

I suppose you could legislate the following:

1. All amendments must be germane to the bill.
2. All budget authorizations must be available for reading 24 hours per 300 pages of text before a vote.
3. Any expenditure must benefit at least two or more states directly.
4. Only Congress may start a foreign territory military action.
5. You can only donate money to a campaign that you can personally vote in.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

With you it will always come down to "we never had purely a free market" so the conversation goes nowhere.

Unless you are willing to acknowledge that for a few decades the developed and developing world's economies were moving towards a free market with free market reforms, we get nowhere. The deregulation and more, of the last 30 years or so are what is commonly understood by the terms 'free market' or 'free market reforms'

You're a stickler on definitions of words, such as "organization" and "government" in this very thread, until it comes to the term "free market."

You're mistaken. I have no problem with the definition of the terms 'free' 'market' or the phrase 'free market' and you know this to be true. What you are avoiding here is the discussion in the real world the free market. Demanding that a free market does not exist and any shape or form unless it is pure is where you stand. It is a stand that is irrational and unreasonable for discussion of the realities on the ground. You are like the Socialist who say we never really had a Socialist state transform into a Communist state because the communism we witnessed was not pure.

I wouldn't call a mixed economy a free market the same way I wouldn't call a regular tiger a sabertooth tiger just because the tiger might be sort of like a sabertooth tiger.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It is not my problem you can't wrap a mind around the concept of not caving into pressures and payoffs.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the idea of corruption of our form of government that has been discussed. Sure some trolls like you have created side threads about the political process, but that is where you all show you are incapable of wrapping your pathetically puny minds around the most basic of concepts -- following a conversation and staying on topic.

Payoffs and pressures you are talking about have everything to do with the political process, and not much about the structure of the system of government. They are mere details that if corrected would do little to fix what supposedly ails the system. It's like stopping the sniffles of a cold and wrongly assuming you've cured the cold. The political process can influence how the system is functioning, but it does not affect the basic structure of the system itself.

Now, if the system is corrupted, who is to blame?

Are you suggesting we legislate morality into the sytstem? If Congress refused the graft, it would go away all on its own. Only because it works does it continue. People are corrupt, systems have faults.

The fault in any system is usually the human factor. It's called reality.

If Congress refused the graft? First of all individuals accept graft, not institutions. Clean up any individual Congress (say 110th) and if the system of government was corrupt all you have done is supplied make up to a pig.

Funny you should mention morality and the system. Most of the founding fathers and the framers spoke at length about the honor, virtue, and morality of men as necessary elements for a republic to succeed.

But before you do what most do here let me set you straight. I have not advocated legislating morality into the system.

see? this is how IT's done.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I suppose you could legislate the following:

1. All amendments must be germane to the bill.
2. All budget authorizations must be available for reading 24 hours per 300 pages of text before a vote.
3. Any expenditure must benefit at least two or more states directly.
4. Only Congress may start a foreign territory military action.
5. You can only donate money to a campaign that you can personally vote in.

I bet you fell for term limits and mandatory sentencing as panaceas too.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You're a stickler on definitions of words, such as "organization" and "government" in this very thread, until it comes to the term "free market."

You're mistaken. I have no problem with the definition of the terms 'free' 'market' or the phrase 'free market' and you know this to be true. What you are avoiding here is the discussion in the real world the free market. Demanding that a free market does not exist and any shape or form unless it is pure is where you stand. It is a stand that is irrational and unreasonable for discussion of the realities on the ground. You are like the Socialist who say we never really had a Socialist state transform into a Communist state because the communism we witnessed was not pure.

I wouldn't call a mixed economy a free market the same way I wouldn't call a regular tiger a sabertooth tiger just because the tiger might be sort of like a sabertooth tiger.

Economic systems that are being changed and altered are not analogous to animals. I have no idea why you have stumbled so badly here.

Mixed economies? I guess a highly regulated economy that was being transformed with free market principles would not technically be a free market economy, but I never argued one would be.

Go back and see what I wrote. http://www.usmessageboard.com/congr...government-who-is-to-blame-5.html#post2758299

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You're mistaken. I have no problem with the definition of the terms 'free' 'market' or the phrase 'free market' and you know this to be true. What you are avoiding here is the discussion in the real world the free market. Demanding that a free market does not exist and any shape or form unless it is pure is where you stand. It is a stand that is irrational and unreasonable for discussion of the realities on the ground. You are like the Socialist who say we never really had a Socialist state transform into a Communist state because the communism we witnessed was not pure.

I wouldn't call a mixed economy a free market the same way I wouldn't call a regular tiger a sabertooth tiger just because the tiger might be sort of like a sabertooth tiger.

Economic systems that are being changed and altered are not analogous to animals. I have no idea why you have stumbled so badly here.

Mixed economies? I guess a highly regulated economy that was being transformed with free market principles would not technically be a free market economy, but I never argued one would be.

Go back and see what I wrote. http://www.usmessageboard.com/congr...government-who-is-to-blame-5.html#post2758299

I'm still waiting on you to explain how you think a free market intervenes in government.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Government is inherently corrupt. The free market, however, doesn't have any part of that as the free market has nothing to do with government.

So you say free market forces have no effect on government?

Governments intervene in markets, markets don't intervene in governments.

It's about intervention now?

I asked: "Corruption of Government. Who is to blame? Is it the free market? "Who do you think corrupts government?"

Is corruption about influence? Do people and forces not influence government and thereby corrupt government? Are you saying outside influences do not corrupt government?

No. I'm saying the free market itself can't influence or corrupt government because the free market has nothing to do with the government. I'm not saying businesses can't lobby government for favors, or that people can't bribe government officials, or what have you. I'm saying that if you have a genuine free market, then the free market has nothing to do with government.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It's about intervention now?

I asked: "Corruption of Government. Who is to blame? Is it the free market? "Who do you think corrupts government?"

Is corruption about influence? Do people and forces not influence government and thereby corrupt government? Are you saying outside influences do not corrupt government?

No. I'm saying the free market itself can't influence or corrupt government because the free market has nothing to do with the government. I'm not saying businesses can't lobby government for favors, or that people can't bribe government officials, or what have you. I'm saying that if you have a genuine free market, then the free market has nothing to do with government.

A 'genuine' free market? I see.

The economy is influenced by the type of market, so does not the economy and the market influence government?

Is this invisible hand so invisible it cannot be perceived of or grasped in the material world? Is it god?

How about this. You explain to me how you think a free market would influence the government, and we'll go from there.

With you it will always come down to "we never had purely a free market" so the conversation goes nowhere.

Unless you are willing to acknowledge that for a few decades the developed and developing world's economies were moving towards a free market with free market reforms, we get nowhere. The deregulation and more, of the last 30 years or so are what is commonly understood by the terms 'free market' or 'free market reforms'

You're a stickler on definitions of words, such as "organization" and "government" in this very thread, until it comes to the term "free market."