Two Thumbs
Platinum Member
I think our central question has been overstepped for far too long.
The central question is: should we rely on the government for the security (economic and literal) of this nation or should we weaken our central government and turn over those responsibilities to monied interests like corporations?
Seems Conservatives are implicitly in favor of the corporate model. Liberals have seen the government (an institution responsible and reliant on the people) as the protector and defender of our security. Corporations are motivated by profit and therefore not responsible to the people.
Seems Conservatives are implicitly in favor of the corporate model. Liberals have seen the government (an institution responsible and reliant on the people) as the protector and defender of our security. A government can't be removed if they fail at thier jobs. Corporations are motivated by profit and therefore not responsible to the people. Success is how you make profit, if the people that buy your product or service are unhappy, they will find some one else, thus forcing the private industry to perform at very high standards or lose all profit. The best you can hope for from the government is mediocraty.
And since you are an adult and have had to deal with some form of government you know that true.
Everything centers around balance. Our whole system is designed to be balanced. I don't think the argument is (or should be) whether everything should be run by government or everything run by private interests, any more than everything should be run by the Executive and the other two branches can go fly a kite. The two act, or should act, as a check on each other's extremes and abuses.
Only extremists want all or nothing, by definition. The argument is (or should be) more about the balance between public and private and whether the current proportions are the correct ones to create an efficient, functional system that addresses the current needs of the State and of the People.
Obviously we're not necessarily going to agree on where the balance should lie. But failing to recognize the inherent value of balance and compromise at the expense of the nation is pretty much what Ole Ben was warning against.
That's reasonable (dammit, now I have to be reasonble)
My balance would be a government big enough to enforce the laws, so that when, say a giant corp, got out of control they could put the screws to them. Right now the Fed is so big that it's worth the time and money of the same giant corp to buy our government out.
It's gotten to the point where it's hard to tell who is actually standing for something or just for more of something.