Once and for all, to fix the Federal Government. . . .

[Wonky Pundit]

That is precisely the principle concept that most separates left (liberal) from right (conservative) these days regardless of the degree of each. The left looks to government to have the sort of society they want. The right trusts the individual to look to their best interests and does not trust the government with that.

Just because an individual knows how to look after their own best interests doesn't mean that they won't try to cheat you at the first opportunity. Any attempt to prevent this by means other than a government has historically failed.

Show me a government that has prevented that and I'll concede that you have a point. Otherise I'll have to point out that you are again missing the point being made here.

How much more human trafficking would there be without any government action against it?

 

[Spoonman]

Just because an individual knows how to look after their own best interests doesn't mean that they won't try to cheat you at the first opportunity. Any attempt to prevent this by means other than a government has historically failed.

Show me a government that has prevented that and I'll concede that you have a point. Otherise I'll have to point out that you are again missing the point being made here.

How much more human trafficking would there be without any government action against it?

if government took action against your posts would we have less of them?

 

[idb]

It's always surprised me when people say they want a "citizen" politician. I want my critter to be a professional too.

So that they can represent and promote the agenda of "professional rulers" rather than the average citizen.

And thus lies the distinction between left and right.

That is precisely the principle concept that most separates left (liberal) from right (conservative) these days regardless of the degree of each. The left looks to government to have the sort of society they want. The right trusts the individual to look to their best interests and does not trust the government with that.

A society cannot operate without the co-operation of the individuals with each other.
This may be enforced or voluntary.
You have huge faith in the civic-mindedness of the individual.

 

[Spoonman]

So that they can represent and promote the agenda of "professional rulers" rather than the average citizen.

And thus lies the distinction between left and right.

That is precisely the principle concept that most separates left (liberal) from right (conservative) these days regardless of the degree of each. The left looks to government to have the sort of society they want. The right trusts the individual to look to their best interests and does not trust the government with that.

A society cannot operate without the co-operation of the individuals with each other.
This may be enforced or voluntary.
You have huge faith in the civic-mindedness of the individual.

 

[candycorn]

What is an entitlement?

Are US Food inspectors an entitlement? Nobody is forcing you to buy food--you could grow your own. So in one sense of the word, they are an entitlement and certainly were not mentioned in the Constitution.

What about National Parks? Do you want to close the Grand Canyon...permanently? Or sell it to Texaco and let them do what they want?

Again, what about the Interstates? I know the citizens of the US are paying for new Interstates being put into Louisiana, Texas and some other states. Will those go bye bye in this silly rush to get back to the exact text of a document written 224 years ago?

en·ti·tle·ment
noun \-ˈtī-təl-mənt\

2
: a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program

A basic civics class would have done you wonders....

And carnivores are a group; are they not?

 

[idb]

What is an entitlement?

Are US Food inspectors an entitlement? Nobody is forcing you to buy food--you could grow your own. So in one sense of the word, they are an entitlement and certainly were not mentioned in the Constitution.

What about National Parks? Do you want to close the Grand Canyon...permanently? Or sell it to Texaco and let them do what they want?

Again, what about the Interstates? I know the citizens of the US are paying for new Interstates being put into Louisiana, Texas and some other states. Will those go bye bye in this silly rush to get back to the exact text of a document written 224 years ago?

en·ti·tle·ment
noun \-ˈtī-təl-mənt\

2
: a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program

A basic civics class would have done you wonders....

And carnivores are a group; are they not?

Yummmm...steaks for everyone!!!

 

[candycorn]

I'm not sure if you know what I'm saying or trying to say (whichever is the case)....

That seems fair, considering how clear it is that you don't have any idea, either...

I want the federal government to have 3X the meat, fish, poultry, vegetable inspectors they have now.

Why?

Incidents of food contamination have dramatically DECREASED since the time CLINTON ended mandatory FDA inspections.

Reinventing Food Regulations



They already do.

The poster who came up with the original OP seems to want to turn back the clock to the 1780's where the government basically protected the borders and little else.

That's a great idea.

As you may or may not know, I'm all for preserving the Constitution

I've seen no evidence supporting such a claim - here or at AWE.

You seem to be fully a "Top down authoritarian," with the individual at the bottom of the heap.

Then you haven't read a word I wrote; I'm for making the constitution as specific as possible so that the "authoratarian" government is boxed into a very small box. I want the document to say how much they can spend; not the blank check of the vague document we have now. ;

As for the other selective quotes you have here, you've mischaracterized what I have said; gee...imagine my shock.

 

[idb]

That is precisely the principle concept that most separates left (liberal) from right (conservative) these days regardless of the degree of each. The left looks to government to have the sort of society they want. The right trusts the individual to look to their best interests and does not trust the government with that.

A society cannot operate without the co-operation of the individuals with each other.
This may be enforced or voluntary.
You have huge faith in the civic-mindedness of the individual.

Your point sailed straight over my head, sorry.

 

[candycorn]

It's always surprised me when people say they want a "citizen" politician. I want my critter to be a professional too.

So that they can represent and promote the agenda of "professional rulers" rather than the average citizen.

And thus lies the distinction between left and right.

No, there inlies the distinction between a knee jerk reaction by people who are fully vested in someone being out to get them and others who recognize that politics, like medicine, like diplomacy, like the law, like almost anything else; is a profession best carried out by those who are skilled in the field.

Please nominate Mike from Pizza Hut to be your representative. I'll stick with my gals and guys; we'll see who wins.

 

[candycorn]

So that they can represent and promote the agenda of "professional rulers" rather than the average citizen.

And thus lies the distinction between left and right.

That is precisely the principle concept that most separates left (liberal) from right (conservative) these days regardless of the degree of each. The left looks to government to have the sort of society they want. The right trusts the individual to look to their best interests and does not trust the government with that.

A society cannot operate without the co-operation of the individuals with each other.
This may be enforced or voluntary.
You have huge faith in the civic-mindedness of the individual.

It's kinda cute isn't it? Sort of like the people who shout at the rain to stop...just knowing that any moment...it will stop.

 

[Foxfyre]

So that they can represent and promote the agenda of "professional rulers" rather than the average citizen.

And thus lies the distinction between left and right.

That is precisely the principle concept that most separates left (liberal) from right (conservative) these days regardless of the degree of each. The left looks to government to have the sort of society they want. The right trusts the individual to look to their best interests and does not trust the government with that.

A society cannot operate without the co-operation of the individuals with each other.
This may be enforced or voluntary.
You have huge faith in the civic-mindedness of the individual.

Individuals will cooperate with each other when it is in their best interest to do so. That requires no enforcement by government whatsoever. All that government is required to do via the constitution is to enact whatever law and regulation is necessary to secure the unalienabe rights of all individuals involved and then leave it to the people to work out what is to the advantage of each or all.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

A society cannot operate without the co-operation of the individuals with each other.
This may be enforced or voluntary.
You have huge faith in the civic-mindedness of the individual.

Your point sailed straight over my head, sorry.

He never has a point. In fact, he usually ends up talking to himself on account of his being on so many ignore lists.

 

[idb]

That is precisely the principle concept that most separates left (liberal) from right (conservative) these days regardless of the degree of each. The left looks to government to have the sort of society they want. The right trusts the individual to look to their best interests and does not trust the government with that.

A society cannot operate without the co-operation of the individuals with each other.
This may be enforced or voluntary.
You have huge faith in the civic-mindedness of the individual.

Individuals will cooperate with each other when it is in their best interest to do so. That requires no enforcement by government whatsoever. All that government is required to do via the constitution is to enact whatever law and regulation is necessary to secure the unalienabe rights of all individuals involved and then leave it to the people to work out what is to the advantage of each or all.

What if your best interests are completely at odds to mine?
In fact, what if your definition of your best interests is harmful to my best interests?

 

[Susan45]

That last one was so on target and speaks so profoundly as to why the federal government must be kept as small and limited in power as possible, it bears repeating:

“There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations"--

I really think you should provide a link. I much prefer reading the originals.

 

[Susan45]

I'm not sure if you know what I'm saying or trying to say (whichever is the case)....

That seems fair, considering how clear it is that you don't have any idea, either...

I want the federal government to have 3X the meat, fish, poultry, vegetable inspectors they have now.

Why?

Incidents of food contamination have dramatically DECREASED since the time CLINTON ended mandatory FDA inspections.

Reinventing Food Regulations



They already do.

The poster who came up with the original OP seems to want to turn back the clock to the 1780's where the government basically protected the borders and little else.

That's a great idea.

As you may or may not know, I'm all for preserving the Constitution

I've seen no evidence supporting such a claim - here or at AWE.

You seem to be fully a "Top down authoritarian," with the individual at the bottom of the heap.

You really think that incidents of food poisoning have gone down?

List of foodborne illness outbreaks in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Remember the salmonella-infected tomatoes of 2008? How about the tainted peanut butter of 2007? Or the bad spinach of 2006? These outbreaks sickened thousands and cost the produce industry hundreds of millions. Yet somehow the Republican Party has forgotten about them.

Republicans Want FDA Funding Back At 2008 Levels--when Spinach, Peanut Butter, And Tomato Outbreaks Sickened The Country | The New Republic

 

[Uncensored2008]

How much more human trafficking would there be without any government action against it?

You mean, if we let fathers and brothers deal with the offenders?

 

[Wonky Pundit]

How much more human trafficking would there be without any government action against it?

You mean, if we let fathers and brothers deal with the offenders?

They wouldn't be nearly as effective, obviously.

 

[Avatar4321]

Forgot to check the other box as well:

1) Restore the Senate to the States
2) Fix ourselves

 

[Uncensored2008]

A society cannot operate without the co-operation of the individuals with each other.
This may be enforced or voluntary.
You have huge faith in the civic-mindedness of the individual.

It has nothing to do with civic mindedness, it has to do with an environment conducive to prosperity. In other words, we don't let the thugs shoot it out in front of our store because it is bad for business. This changes when government demands that we DO allow the thugs to roam wild, as is currently the case. 30 years ago, "no loitering" meant the proprietor would drive the hoodlums off with a baseball bat or a shotgun. Now the cops would throw the proprietor in prison and the hoodlums would be awarded damages for emotional distress.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And carnivores are a group; are they not?

Which government entitlement is it that you imagine to be given to carnivores?