Corruption of Government. Who is to blame?

[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."

That's not explaining. That's an excuse for not explaining.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

I see.

I posted 2 collections of our conversation. Post #99 and Post #100

you: "I'm saying the free market itself can't influence or corrupt government because the free market has nothing to do with the government."

me: "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?"

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

----------

So let me get this straight, you've made the statements "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." without backing them up, and then you demand I answer questions when you cannot answer the questions raised by your statements?

Okay, but I set conditions: "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." because as I say, with you it will always come down to "we never had purely a free market" so the conversation goes nowhere.

What about it? Was I right? Are you dooming conversations to going nowhere because you refuse to acknowledge common understandings? note: added material

 

[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."

That's not explaining. That's an excuse for not explaining.

sorry it took so long. see above post

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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

I see.

I posted 2 collections of our conversation. Post #99 and Post #100

you: "I'm saying the free market itself can't influence or corrupt government because the free market has nothing to do with the government."

me: "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?"

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

----------

So let me get this straight, you've made the statements "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." without backing them up, and then you demand I answer questions when you cannot answer the questions raised by your statements?

Okay, but I set conditions: "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." because as I say, with you it will always come down to "we never had purely a free market" so the conversation goes nowhere.

What about it? Was I right? Are you dooming conversations to going nowhere because you refuse to acknowledge common understandings? note: added material

Actually, I have backed them up. I explained why a free market cannot intervene in the government by explaining what a free market is. That you don't accept this explanation is not a reflection on me. Now if you want to continue to erroneously define a heavily regulated mixed economy as a free market because of some "deregulation" then that's your mistake. It's not "dooming conversations to go nowhere" because you can't accept an answer.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

I see.

I posted 2 collections of our conversation. Post #99 and Post #100

you: "I'm saying the free market itself can't influence or corrupt government because the free market has nothing to do with the government."

me: "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?"

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

----------

So let me get this straight, you've made the statements "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." without backing them up, and then you demand I answer questions when you cannot answer the questions raised by your statements?

Okay, but I set conditions: "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." because as I say, with you it will always come down to "we never had purely a free market" so the conversation goes nowhere.

What about it? Was I right? Are you dooming conversations to going nowhere because you refuse to acknowledge common understandings? note: added material

Actually, I have backed them up. I explained why a free market cannot intervene in the government by explaining what a free market is. That you don't accept this explanation is not a reflection on me. Now if you want to continue to erroneously define a heavily regulated mixed economy as a free market because of some "deregulation" then that's your mistake. It's not "dooming conversations to go nowhere" because you can't accept an answer.

Actually, you have not backed up your statements listed in the above post and the posts preceding it. You have offered explanations that do not address the questions raised.

Questions: So you say free market forces have no effect on 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?

Answers: Governments intervene in markets, markets don't intervene in governments. 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 saying that if you have a genuine free market, then the free market has nothing to do with government.


---

As I replied: 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 doom conversations to going nowhere because you refuse to acknowledge common understandings.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I see.

I posted 2 collections of our conversation. Post #99 and Post #100

you: "I'm saying the free market itself can't influence or corrupt government because the free market has nothing to do with the government."

me: "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?"

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

----------

So let me get this straight, you've made the statements "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." without backing them up, and then you demand I answer questions when you cannot answer the questions raised by your statements?

Okay, but I set conditions: "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." because as I say, with you it will always come down to "we never had purely a free market" so the conversation goes nowhere.

What about it? Was I right? Are you dooming conversations to going nowhere because you refuse to acknowledge common understandings? note: added material

Actually, I have backed them up. I explained why a free market cannot intervene in the government by explaining what a free market is. That you don't accept this explanation is not a reflection on me. Now if you want to continue to erroneously define a heavily regulated mixed economy as a free market because of some "deregulation" then that's your mistake. It's not "dooming conversations to go nowhere" because you can't accept an answer.

Actually, you have not backed up your statements listed in the above post and the posts preceding it. You have offered explanations that do not address the questions raised.

Questions: So you say free market forces have no effect on 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?

Answers: Governments intervene in markets, markets don't intervene in governments. 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 saying that if you have a genuine free market, then the free market has nothing to do with government.


---

As I replied: 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 doom conversations to going nowhere because you refuse to acknowledge common understandings.

Your idea of "common understandings" are simply calling a free market what it isn't, a regulated mixed economy.

 

[Titanic Sailor]

Most of the government employees (except the military) and politicians are straight out Democrat, and their corruption arrests over the years have completely dwarfed GOP clownery. From your local schools, town hall, universities, court systems, local, city, and state government employees, straight to Washington, DC:
One giant army of Democrat voters who will not vote for a Party that speaks of government reform. If you don't outvote the government workers and their families, you have a tough future ahead of you.

and here we are, a system so dysfunctional and corrupt you might not be able to reform it as it stands because you will surely end up in a court room run by Democrats for years over many reform goals.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Actually, I have backed them up. I explained why a free market cannot intervene in the government by explaining what a free market is. That you don't accept this explanation is not a reflection on me. Now if you want to continue to erroneously define a heavily regulated mixed economy as a free market because of some "deregulation" then that's your mistake. It's not "dooming conversations to go nowhere" because you can't accept an answer.

Actually, you have not backed up your statements listed in the above post and the posts preceding it. You have offered explanations that do not address the questions raised.

Questions: So you say free market forces have no effect on 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?

Answers: Governments intervene in markets, markets don't intervene in governments. 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 saying that if you have a genuine free market, then the free market has nothing to do with government.


---

As I replied: 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 doom conversations to going nowhere because you refuse to acknowledge common understandings.

Your idea of "common understandings" are simply calling a free market what it isn't, a regulated mixed economy.

Maybe you have to go outside your little safe zone and see what a common understanding is? My idea? The world is full of people speaking about free market forces and reforms. It is what I have been talking about, but keep insisting in ignoring this.

You keep falling back to talking about a pure free market. That would be okay if it wasn't a sad example of avoiding the elephant in the room: I never meant for you to defend what constitutes a free market.

From a very early post: "So you say free market forces have no effect on government?" So I guess you try to say free market reforms and forces cannot exist outside a pure free market.

So I guess emerging nations that are experimenting with democratic and capitalistic reforms are not really experiencing democratic and capitalist forces, and their effects on their politics and economies, because they haven't yet achieved the status of being pure capitalistic democracies?

 

[KissMy]

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.

Eight Bell California City Council Members Arrested for ‘Corruption on Steroids’

Government is inherently corrupt.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Actually, you have not backed up your statements listed in the above post and the posts preceding it. You have offered explanations that do not address the questions raised.

Questions: So you say free market forces have no effect on 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?

Answers: Governments intervene in markets, markets don't intervene in governments. 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 saying that if you have a genuine free market, then the free market has nothing to do with government.


---

As I replied: 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 doom conversations to going nowhere because you refuse to acknowledge common understandings.

Your idea of "common understandings" are simply calling a free market what it isn't, a regulated mixed economy.

Maybe you have to go outside your little safe zone and see what a common understanding is? My idea? The world is full of people speaking about free market forces and reforms. It is what I have been talking about, but keep insisting in ignoring this.

You keep falling back to talking about a pure free market. That would be okay if it wasn't a sad example of avoiding the elephant in the room: I never meant for you to defend what constitutes a free market.

From a very early post: "So you say free market forces have no effect on government?" So I guess you try to say free market reforms and forces cannot exist outside a pure free market.

So I guess emerging nations that are experimenting with democratic and capitalistic reforms are not really experiencing democratic and capitalist forces, and their effects on their politics and economies, because they haven't yet achieved the status of being pure capitalistic democracies?

That you say something is a common understanding doesn't make it so.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Eight Bell California City Council Members Arrested for ‘Corruption on Steroids’

Government is inherently corrupt.

The City of Bell had a vote a few years ago and only a few hundred people voted. Funny thing happened on the way to the polls, there was a vote for a change in the type of government they would have...the city charter.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

That you say something is a common understanding doesn't make it so.

It isn't what I say it is. Define what 'common understanding' is and then look at what people are talking about when they discuss free market reforms and forces.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That you say something is a common understanding doesn't make it so.

It isn't what I say it is. Define what 'common understanding' is and then look at what people are talking about when they discuss free market reforms and forces.

That some people labor under the incorrect definition of what a free market is isn't news to me. You're a shining example.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think you keep making the mistake of speaking about individual governments and not the governmental systems. You also appear to be struggling with the concept of economic systems separate from governmental systems. If so, you need much more than a civics lesson.

Your position is that the Communist and Capitalist economic systems of the later half of the 20th century had no effect on the systems of governments that embraced those economic systems, as well as having no effect upon the systems of government all over the world?

Governmental systems? Just what do you think these things are? Every single communist nation uses a different version of communism, non of which resemble true communism in any way. The same is true of the capitalist nations, so what government system are you talking about? Is there some sort of secret plot to control the world that you are privy to that the rest of us, sane people, missed the memo on?

Here is where people like you are always fall down. We are not speaking about Communism and Capitalism as systems of government. Communism and Capitalism are economic social-political systems or movements that have existed under systems of government like a Representative Republic, a Constitutional Monarchy, a Dictatorship, etc. Communism and Capitalism are NOT the systems of government.

sigh I just went and did a Google search for you. Please, do some research before you start talking out of your ass. List of forms of government - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And your idiotic attempt to argue whether any political system was pure or not gets to say whether those systems can be judged, is moronic.

You brought up both capitalism and communism in the assumption that these economic systems actually exist in the real world. Then you start talking about government systems, and instead of clarifying your point you attempt to then it around and act like I do not know what I am saying.

Remember that post you whined about, the one where I said i had never seen you participate in a debate? This is exactly what I am talking about. You attempt to redefine terms, change positions, and tie other people in knots. I suppose you think this makes you think you look clever, and it probably does confuse people who are your equal in intelligence, but most people see right through it. You end up looking more idiotic every time you post, and you are so confused you do not even know it.

I still remember the first thread of yours I responded to on this board. You used a term that meant something other than what you thought it did. I promised you then I would never assume you knew what a word, or term, meant simply because you used them. I haven't forgotten that lesson, even though I still try to treat you like you are a serious poster.

I think that I will simply mock you from now on, and never assume that anything you say is meant to be serious. You do have the opportunity to prove me wrong if you like, even if I doubt you will. Unlike some posters on this board I am willing to admit I am wrong. Feel free to make me eat my words.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Always have, and probably always will.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Your idea of "common understandings" are simply calling a free market what it isn't, a regulated mixed economy.

Maybe you have to go outside your little safe zone and see what a common understanding is? My idea? The world is full of people speaking about free market forces and reforms. It is what I have been talking about, but keep insisting in ignoring this.

You keep falling back to talking about a pure free market. That would be okay if it wasn't a sad example of avoiding the elephant in the room: I never meant for you to defend what constitutes a free market.

From a very early post: "So you say free market forces have no effect on government?" So I guess you try to say free market reforms and forces cannot exist outside a pure free market.

So I guess emerging nations that are experimenting with democratic and capitalistic reforms are not really experiencing democratic and capitalist forces, and their effects on their politics and economies, because they haven't yet achieved the status of being pure capitalistic democracies?

That you say something is a common understanding doesn't make it so.

It is a common misunderstanding among Keynesians. I wonder why they don't think the weather helps corrupt government also.

 

[Big Fitz]

I rarely ever notice who is posting and who I am posting to.

Wow... that took a while to stop laughing at you.

There are a few trolls on the stalk-Dante with-idiotic-insults list

Sally, I generally avoid your threads nowadays. That's why I was shocked when you actually put up a GOOD one. Too bad you have now thrown it right into the cesspit too. So yeah, whatever.

next time you do not link to the post you are quoting I will just ignore you.

Try being butch with someone who doesn't know you. You go right ahead and ignore me all you want. I responded for my own edification and that of others. More than a few have appreciated my input. I'm not going to quote an extra ton of text just for your own edification and waste of space.

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?

Strange, you're the only one who didn't get what I opined. You know what... no. You're just not worth it. I put up my points. You didn't get it and want me to spoon feed you so you can play Rules for Radicals with it. I'm not offering a comprehensive plan for you to play with. Pay me lots of money and maybe I will come up with a comprehensive plan.

I don't have the interest to play games with you.

 

[saveliberty]

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.

Countering your own conclusion? Are you daft?

First you acknowledge people as the problem, then you go on to say the answer is changing the system. If you can't make the people more moral, then you must make the system more that way, yet you refuse that answer. Congratulations, you have just created circular reasoning. A failure on your part to be sure.

That is how its done bitch.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

That you say something is a common understanding doesn't make it so.

It isn't what I say it is. Define what 'common understanding' is and then look at what people are talking about when they discuss free market reforms and forces.

That some people labor under the incorrect definition of what a free market is isn't news to me. You're a shining example.

People are speaking about free market forces and reforms.

You are living in a dream world

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

wow. The wingnuts rally round the flag pole.