CDZ Isn't smaller governance better?

[Tehon]

It’s not a binary choice between totalitarianism and anarchy.

And, bingo. The problem is, we've devolved into such shallow, simplistic, binary thought that more and more people are intellectually hamstrung by it.

The answer lies in finding a proper equilibrium, a point or area at which government provides acceptably effective & efficient services and safety nets without creating too much of a drag on the dynamic nature of markets, innovation and individual freedom.

But finding that equilibrium is essentially impossible in this environment. So most likely, we'll continue this wild back-and-forth approach for the foreseeable future. This is the predictable result of ego, party & ideology taking priority over country.
.

It is the predictable result of ignorance fueled by misinformation campaigns aimed at stoking fear and fomenting division.

You can, and likely will, say that "both sides" engage in this behavior. But you will be wrong. One side relies on provable facts and the other on beliefs. Saying that they need to take steps toward each other and meet in the middle is saying that facts don't matter.

You don't really know what the facts are.

You have faith that the government and its media mouthpiece are giving you facts. Like a religion.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Saying that they need to take steps toward each other and meet in the middle is saying that facts don't matter.

Precisely the kind binary thought I was talking about. Nowhere did I use the term "middle", or "center", but people who are intellectually affixed to a Left/Right ideology make that binary leap, that simplistic assumption. If it's not far Left or far Right, it can only be the middle. That's it. Book it.

Of course, we see this from both ends of the spectrum.

We're so far now from dynamic, independent thought that I don't know how we get back to it. Worse, this affliction continues to metastasize.
.

We don't see it from both ends to the same degree.

One end offers theory and policy based on facts an evidence way more often than does the other. That side should not be asked to abandon the facts and evidence in the ineterests of harmony.

Choose any controversal issue and drill down on the veracity of the claims made by "both sides". You will find that the facts and evidence won't be present on both sides.

The unpleasant reality that the side with the facts and evidence also has certainly power hungry politicians who sometimes choose party over country does not negate the importance of being in alignment with the facts.

 

[LoneLaugher]

It’s not a binary choice between totalitarianism and anarchy.

And, bingo. The problem is, we've devolved into such shallow, simplistic, binary thought that more and more people are intellectually hamstrung by it.

The answer lies in finding a proper equilibrium, a point or area at which government provides acceptably effective & efficient services and safety nets without creating too much of a drag on the dynamic nature of markets, innovation and individual freedom.

But finding that equilibrium is essentially impossible in this environment. So most likely, we'll continue this wild back-and-forth approach for the foreseeable future. This is the predictable result of ego, party & ideology taking priority over country.
.

It is the predictable result of ignorance fueled by misinformation campaigns aimed at stoking fear and fomenting division.

You can, and likely will, say that "both sides" engage in this behavior. But you will be wrong. One side relies on provable facts and the other on beliefs. Saying that they need to take steps toward each other and meet in the middle is saying that facts don't matter.

You don't really know what the facts are.

You have faith that the government and its media mouthpiece are giving you facts. Like a religion.

Incorrect. You must think you are talking to someone else.

State a fact. Any fact. Let's see if I agree with you.

 

[Tehon]

It’s not a binary choice between totalitarianism and anarchy.

And, bingo. The problem is, we've devolved into such shallow, simplistic, binary thought that more and more people are intellectually hamstrung by it.

The answer lies in finding a proper equilibrium, a point or area at which government provides acceptably effective & efficient services and safety nets without creating too much of a drag on the dynamic nature of markets, innovation and individual freedom.

But finding that equilibrium is essentially impossible in this environment. So most likely, we'll continue this wild back-and-forth approach for the foreseeable future. This is the predictable result of ego, party & ideology taking priority over country.
.

It is the predictable result of ignorance fueled by misinformation campaigns aimed at stoking fear and fomenting division.

You can, and likely will, say that "both sides" engage in this behavior. But you will be wrong. One side relies on provable facts and the other on beliefs. Saying that they need to take steps toward each other and meet in the middle is saying that facts don't matter.

You don't really know what the facts are.

You have faith that the government and its media mouthpiece are giving you facts. Like a religion.

Incorrect. You must think you are talking to someone else.

State a fact. Any fact. Let's see if I agree with you.

Fact

I don't have the facts either. I can only make judgements about what are presented as facts.

 

[LoneLaugher]

It’s not a binary choice between totalitarianism and anarchy.

And, bingo. The problem is, we've devolved into such shallow, simplistic, binary thought that more and more people are intellectually hamstrung by it.

The answer lies in finding a proper equilibrium, a point or area at which government provides acceptably effective & efficient services and safety nets without creating too much of a drag on the dynamic nature of markets, innovation and individual freedom.

But finding that equilibrium is essentially impossible in this environment. So most likely, we'll continue this wild back-and-forth approach for the foreseeable future. This is the predictable result of ego, party & ideology taking priority over country.
.

It is the predictable result of ignorance fueled by misinformation campaigns aimed at stoking fear and fomenting division.

You can, and likely will, say that "both sides" engage in this behavior. But you will be wrong. One side relies on provable facts and the other on beliefs. Saying that they need to take steps toward each other and meet in the middle is saying that facts don't matter.

You don't really know what the facts are.

You have faith that the government and its media mouthpiece are giving you facts. Like a religion.

Incorrect. You must think you are talking to someone else.

State a fact. Any fact. Let's see if I agree with you.

Fact

I don't have the facts either. I can only make judgements about what are presented as facts.

Lame avoidance.

 

[Skull Pilot]

They are conditioned to be happy being controlled by their government

we are not.

Such horseshit...

really?

Anti government attitudes are in the DNA of this country
unfortunately sheep like you are breeding that most desirable trait out of existence.

Government does not make people who value freedom happy never has never will

The minute you start seeing government as other than a necessary evil you have gone full sheep

 

[dblack]

Democracy becomes oppressive when 51% of the people find out that they can use the power of the government to steal from the other 49%.

Or force them to buy state-sponsored insurance. Or force them to bake cakes for gay weddings. Or force them to give discounts to the NRA. Or violate their rights in any other way.

This is why we have Constitutional limits on how the majority is allowed to force it's will on everyone else. If we remove, or dismiss those limits (as we are doing), we'll have oppression - 'tyranny of the majority'. It will get ugly.

 

[Tehon]

And, bingo. The problem is, we've devolved into such shallow, simplistic, binary thought that more and more people are intellectually hamstrung by it.

The answer lies in finding a proper equilibrium, a point or area at which government provides acceptably effective & efficient services and safety nets without creating too much of a drag on the dynamic nature of markets, innovation and individual freedom.

But finding that equilibrium is essentially impossible in this environment. So most likely, we'll continue this wild back-and-forth approach for the foreseeable future. This is the predictable result of ego, party & ideology taking priority over country.
.

It is the predictable result of ignorance fueled by misinformation campaigns aimed at stoking fear and fomenting division.

You can, and likely will, say that "both sides" engage in this behavior. But you will be wrong. One side relies on provable facts and the other on beliefs. Saying that they need to take steps toward each other and meet in the middle is saying that facts don't matter.

You don't really know what the facts are.

You have faith that the government and its media mouthpiece are giving you facts. Like a religion.

Incorrect. You must think you are talking to someone else.

State a fact. Any fact. Let's see if I agree with you.

Fact

I don't have the facts either. I can only make judgements about what are presented as facts.

Lame avoidance.

Your avoidance is lame.

I stated a fact.

 

[Flash]

Democracy becomes oppressive when 51% of the people find out that they can use the power of the government to steal from the other 49%.

Or force them to buy state-sponsored insurance. Or force them to bake cakes for gay weddings. Or force them to give discounts to the NRA. Or violate their rights in any other way.

This is why we have Constitutional limits on how the majority is allowed to force it's will on everyone else. If we remove, or dismiss those limits (as we are doing), we'll have oppression - 'tyranny of the majority'. It will get ugly.

I have thought about it quite a bit and I am not sure if the problem is that our Bill of Rights is not strong enough to protect us from government oppression or is the fact that the elected assholes ignore the Bill of Rights. Maybe both.

For instance, the Florida Legislature yesterday passed a stupid knee jerk reaction bill to the Parkland shooting that significantly hampered the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms for 18-20 year olds. Why can the government do something as oppressive as that when the Bill of Rights clearly says that the right to keep and bear arms hall not be infringed?

Why do we have such a massive failure of Liberty in our country? The welfare state robs of Liberty. Oppressive regulations robs u of Liberty. Excessive taxation and the redistribution of that money robs us of Liberty.

 

[dblack]

I have thought about it quite a bit and I am not sure if the problem is that our Bill of Rights is not strong enough to protect us from government oppression or is the fact that the elected assholes ignore the Bill of Rights. Maybe both.

I think the problem is that, despite the admonition of the Ninth Amendment, people have come to see the Bill of Rights as an exclusive list of protected freedoms. I see it all the time in conversations on this board - from both the "left" and the "right". People presume that if a given right isn't listed in the BoR, government can write laws violating it at their discretion.

 

[Flash]

I have thought about it quite a bit and I am not sure if the problem is that our Bill of Rights is not strong enough to protect us from government oppression or is the fact that the elected assholes ignore the Bill of Rights. Maybe both.

I think the problem is that, despite the admonition of the Ninth Amendment, people have come to see the Bill of Rights as an exclusive list of protected freedoms. I see it all the time in conversations on this board - from both the "left" and the "right". People presume that if a given right isn't listed in the BoR, government can write laws violating it at their discretion.

I am sure that when our Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights it was with the clear intention of significantly limiting the powers of the government in order to promote and enhance personal Liberties but that idea has been eroded tremendously.

I honestly don't think our Republic can't be fixed. Too many greedy welfare queens trying to use the government to get what they can't or won't earn themselves.

Too bad. I was born on the greatest country on the face of the earth. I will die in a country hellbent upon becoming a socialistic shithole. All because of greed.

 

[LoneLaugher]

It is the predictable result of ignorance fueled by misinformation campaigns aimed at stoking fear and fomenting division.

You can, and likely will, say that "both sides" engage in this behavior. But you will be wrong. One side relies on provable facts and the other on beliefs. Saying that they need to take steps toward each other and meet in the middle is saying that facts don't matter.

You don't really know what the facts are.

You have faith that the government and its media mouthpiece are giving you facts. Like a religion.

Incorrect. You must think you are talking to someone else.

State a fact. Any fact. Let's see if I agree with you.

Fact

I don't have the facts either. I can only make judgements about what are presented as facts.

Lame avoidance.

Your avoidance is lame.

I stated a fact.

Awww. So cute! Lemme squeeze your cheeks. You're absolutely precious!

 

[dblack]

I have thought about it quite a bit and I am not sure if the problem is that our Bill of Rights is not strong enough to protect us from government oppression or is the fact that the elected assholes ignore the Bill of Rights. Maybe both.

I think the problem is that, despite the admonition of the Ninth Amendment, people have come to see the Bill of Rights as an exclusive list of protected freedoms. I see it all the time in conversations on this board - from both the "left" and the "right". People presume that if a given right isn't listed in the BoR, government can write laws violating it at their discretion.

I am sure that when our Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights it was with the clear intention of significantly limiting the powers of the government in order to promote and enhance personal Liberties but that idea has been eroded tremendously.

I don't think the case. It certainly wasn't a solid consensus. Many of them felt the Bill of Rights was a mistake, for exactly the reasons we're discussing now - they feared people would see it as the only rights protected by the Constitution. The thought that restricting Congress to its enumerated powers was enough. For example, there's no need for a provision saying Congress can pass no law restricting speech or religion because they aren't empowered to do that in the first place.

I honestly don't think our Republic can't be fixed. Too many greedy welfare queens trying to use the government to get what they can't or won't earn themselves.

Hmm.... I can't really see how the recipients of welfare are the problem. If anything, they're the victims.

Too bad. I was born on the greatest country on the face of the earth. I will die in a country hellbent upon becoming a socialistic shithole. All because of greed.

Not me. I was born in an aging democracy. And aging democracies inevitably collect their share of rent-seeking power blocs and drift toward corporatism (Corporatism - Wikipedia). That's the real "enemy" and, like you, I'm not sure we can fight it off.

 

[Tehon]

You don't really know what the facts are.

You have faith that the government and its media mouthpiece are giving you facts. Like a religion.

Incorrect. You must think you are talking to someone else.

State a fact. Any fact. Let's see if I agree with you.

Fact

I don't have the facts either. I can only make judgements about what are presented as facts.

Lame avoidance.

Your avoidance is lame.

I stated a fact.

Awww. So cute! Lemme squeeze your cheeks. You're absolutely precious!

Incorrect. You must think you are talking to someone else.

State a fact. Any fact. Let's see if I agree with you.

Do you agree with me or not?

Maybe I do know who I'm talking to .

 

[Tehon]

Hmm.... I can't really see how the recipients of welfare are the problem. If anything, they're the victims.

Who or what do you see them victimized by?

 

[Flash]

[Q


Hmm.... I can't really see how the recipients of welfare are the problem. If anything, they're the victims.

.

By welfare I mean everybody that sucks off the teat of big government. It is just not the inner city ghetto dwellers or the Illegals getting food stamps. It can also include corporations like GM and Solyndra. It also includes foreign countries. It is anybody that gets a redistribution of tax payer's money. It includes welfare, subsidies, entitlements and bailouts.

It destroys Liberty when the democracy is used to take money from the people that earned it and is given away to the that didn't earn it. The Bill of Rights really don't protect us from that abuse of government.

 

[Circe]

We hear about how Denmark, Sweden, etc. are the happiest nations. I don't know if that's true or not but, they are smaller populations. Is it possible that they do well because they are smaller?

For that matter, the smaller and closer to home is our governance, is it not better?

From what I can gather, the left typically likes to consolidate huge swathes of people and govern them from one, centralized government. But, as far as I can tell, government is better when it's smaller and more localized.

What say you?

I don't think it's about small government.

It's about homogeneity. Nationstates are happiest when they are homogeneous. Ethnically disparate populations are infamously unstable and crime and violence-ridden.

As the Scandinavian countries let in more and more Muslims, the more violence and crime and unhappiness they experience.

More fool them. And us.

 

[dblack]

Hmm.... I can't really see how the recipients of welfare are the problem. If anything, they're the victims.

Who or what do you see them victimized by?

State promoted dependency. It undermines family and community values in the targeted population and keeps them "in their place".

 

[Tehon]

Hmm.... I can't really see how the recipients of welfare are the problem. If anything, they're the victims.

Who or what do you see them victimized by?

State promoted dependency. It undermines family and community values in the targeted population and keeps them "in their place".

Flash seems to think that people have free will and are just lazy.

You seem to think people lack free will and place blame with the state.

I tend to see it as a failure of society at large to produce desirable results in the distribution of our material needs. There are many reasons people slip through the cracks, economically speaking. Neither of your ideas addresses that fact.

 

[Circe]

We're so far now from dynamic, independent thought that I don't know how we get back to it. Worse, this affliction continues to metastasize.
.

True. Maybe you should join it, not fight it.