So you recognize that politicians are generally bent to the will of billionaire corporate overlords, and your solution? Give politicians more power so they can stop that sorta thing and so they'll have the authority to do what's right for the people!
Cuz if we give 'em more power, they'll stop selling it, right? HOLY SHIT!
LMFAO!
Where did I say we need to give politicians more power? Never did man. I stand against Citizens United.
You never say it outright, but you imply it often. For instance, look at the very post that I quoted.
"The people need to decipher what is best for the country and what is best for the corporations leading the politicians." The obvious implication is that the people need to decide on how to regulate the control that corporations exert over politicians.
Once the people decide on how to regulate this, they empower politicians to enforce that regulation. When you empower politicians to regulate, you increase the amount of power they are able to sell to their billionaire overlords.
You also make the argument about motorcycle helmets, and how forcing people to wear them decreases their risk and, by some leap of logic that I still can't follow, increases the "liberty" of their families (I'm still not sure how you define liberty, as you've said it's different from freedom. You'll have to expound on what you mean by that and where you acquired your definition of liberty).
Your implication there is that, for the greater good, the government (politicians) should be empowered to regulate individual behaviors that, while victimless (I don't victimize anybody by smashing my head in a motorcycle accident), are risky to the individual acting. You're empowering politicians to decide what safety equipment I need to purchase to protect me from myself.
Now, I'm making a bit of a leap here regarding your beliefs, but I did notice on the "should people without children be forced to pay more" thread you said that they should, because they aren't having children to support their social security and medicare down the road (which is already bullshit, because everyone pays into both of those things their whole lives. Why do they also have to have a kid paying in before they're given back the shit that was taken out of their checks all their lives? Different argument, I'll stay on topic). This implies that, in the case of helmets, you'd probably argue that, because some of those motorcyclists can't afford their own medical bills, they would be victimizing society at large with their medical bills. That, in turn, implies that you feel it perfectly just that the government forces us to pay for each other's medical expenses.
Rather than leaving people free to fuck their own heads up on motorcycles, you feel it just that the government force us to pay for the broken headed idiots and then fine them when they risk their own health. You want to empower government to force people to buy safety equipment to protect them from their own choices, and you don't see how this is tantamount to wanting to give politicians the very power that you lament their propensity to sell to the highest bidder?
Holy shit. Do you not even understand the nature of your own philosophy? You do, indeed, value a powerful and intrusive government, but somehow manage to reconcile this with the acknowledgement that politicians will sell their power and ability to intrude.
What is it w/ rw'ers and calling for revolutionary rhetoric if their ideology isn't implemented? Also, last I heard, ideologies aren't against the law. I can run for an office based on almost any ideology I can think of tomorrow and it isn't illegal. I'm also a gun-owning vet BUT a Progressive. Stop w/ the broad-brushing.
