Revolution!!!

[saveliberty]

Money is power. You're not going to separate the two.

The power of the Church used to be just as unquestionable. It'll take time.

The level of privacy we would have to give up is not supportive of liberty.

 

[dblack]

Money is power. You're not going to separate the two.

The power of the Church used to be just as unquestionable. It'll take time.

The level of privacy we would have to give up is not supportive of liberty.

How do you mean? I'd imagine getting government out of economic affairs would grant us more privacy, not less.

 

[notatallanti]

Aren't economic affairs and government pretty much joined at the hip? There are necessary public services that must be paid for (roads, sewers, waste processing, etc.), and the economic sector pays for that, so it wants to regulate it.

 

[dblack]

Aren't economic affairs and government pretty much joined at the hip? There are necessary public services that must be paid for (roads, sewers, waste processing, etc.), and the economic sector pays for that, so it wants to regulate it.

They're joined at the hip currently, and that's the problem in my view. And just as the authority of the Church to collude with government and control us via religion was unquestioned in the medieval mind, we currently have a hard time conceiving of government that doesn't seek to control us through economic power. But I think it can happen. And I think it should.

 

[catzmeow]

Aren't economic affairs and government pretty much joined at the hip? There are necessary public services that must be paid for (roads, sewers, waste processing, etc.), and the economic sector pays for that, so it wants to regulate it.

They're joined at the hip currently, and that's the problem in my view. And just as the authority of the Church to collude with government and control us via religion was unquestioned in the medieval mind, we currently have a hard time conceiving of government that doesn't seek to control us through economic power. But I think it can happen. And I think it should.

I disagree. I think that we are now in a position as a country where our economic and trade policies must put us on a competitive footing with other nations. Our citizens compete not with each other, but within a global economy. Thinking we can go back to how things were done in 1776 is silly.

 

[dblack]

Aren't economic affairs and government pretty much joined at the hip? There are necessary public services that must be paid for (roads, sewers, waste processing, etc.), and the economic sector pays for that, so it wants to regulate it.

They're joined at the hip currently, and that's the problem in my view. And just as the authority of the Church to collude with government and control us via religion was unquestioned in the medieval mind, we currently have a hard time conceiving of government that doesn't seek to control us through economic power. But I think it can happen. And I think it should.

I disagree. I think that we are now in a position as a country where our economic and trade policies must put us on a competitive footing with other nations. Our citizens compete not with each other, but within a global economy. Thinking we can go back to how things were done in 1776 is silly.

I don't think of it as going back at all, rather the next step forward. It's interesting that the rationale you use for keeping government and economy merged is quite similar to the excuse for the church/state collusion. Each used the other to pursue empire.

 

[saveliberty]

The power of the Church used to be just as unquestionable. It'll take time.

The level of privacy we would have to give up is not supportive of liberty.

How do you mean? I'd imagine getting government out of economic affairs would grant us more privacy, not less.

How do you track the involvement of government in money related matters? Is that restricted to just those in government or do all of us get tracked? Having every aspect of our economic lives a matter of public record doesn't seem like privacy to me.

 

[dblack]

The level of privacy we would have to give up is not supportive of liberty.

How do you mean? I'd imagine getting government out of economic affairs would grant us more privacy, not less.

How do you track the involvement of government in money related matters? Is that restricted to just those in government or do all of us get tracked? Having every aspect of our economic lives a matter of public record doesn't seem like privacy to me.

The idea is to constitutionally limit government's ability to meddle in economic matters. This would abolish discriminatory taxation (tax "incentives" and the like) and ideally, income tax altogether. It would mandate that government end the practice of making laws specifically designed to "create jobs" or "stimulate" the economy, or otherwise reward and punish people or businesses for non-justice related reasons.

You seem to be looking at this from an entirely different angle than I am. I'm not really sure I understand where you're coming from.

 

[saveliberty]

I thought someone mentioned the best way to limit our representatives from undo influence was to separate money from government.

 

[dblack]

I thought someone mentioned the best way to limit our representatives from undo influence was to separate money from government.

Indeed. But how to do that?

I think we need to realize it's a two-way street. People with economic ambitions are desperate to influence government because government has so much power over their success or failure. With regard to separating church and state, this was the genius of the founders who sought to limit religious influence in government. They realized that the best way to keep religion out of government was to limit government's ability to interfere with religion. Likewise, when government can no longer be used by ambitious people to enhance their own wealth, there will be much less incentive for them to use their wealth to influence government.

 

[saveliberty]

I thought someone mentioned the best way to limit our representatives from undo influence was to separate money from government.

Indeed. But how to do that?

I think we need to realize it's a two-way street. People with economic ambitions are desperate to influence government because government has so much power over their success or failure. With regard to separating church and state, this was the genius of the founders who sought to limit religious influence in government. They realized that the best way to keep religion out of government was to limit government's ability to interfere with religion. Likewise, when government can no longer be used by ambitious people to enhance their own wealth, there will be much less incentive for them to use their wealth to influence government.

You stated money needed to be removed from the system. You can't remove it. You can require a great deal of tracking and reporting. That means we all are going to see more personal financial iinformation released and I correctly mentioned that reduces privacy/liberty.

 

[Liability]

Well lately it means a theocracy fills the vacuum...

I would like to see the evidence for that in any society not already fucked up by the disease of Islam.

 

[dblack]

You stated money needed to be removed from the system. You can't remove it. You can require a great deal of tracking and reporting. That means we all are going to see more personal financial iinformation released and I correctly mentioned that reduces privacy/liberty.

I don't recall stating that, and I'm not even sure what "removing money from the system" would mean. I'm talking about separating economic and state power - ensuring that people can't use government to make themselves rich, and likewise that government can't use its power over the economy to coerce behavior.

 

[saveliberty]

Well lately it means a theocracy fills the vacuum...

I would like to see the evidence for that in any society not already fucked up by the disease of Islam.

What part of lately is giving you troubles Liability? I would guess that in this imaginery revolution we are talking about, conservatives will be organizing themselves. Much of the speeches and information of the first one was at a church. Not a big leap to expect something similiar the second time.

 

[Foxfyre]

I thought someone mentioned the best way to limit our representatives from undo influence was to separate money from government.

Indeed. But how to do that?

I think we need to realize it's a two-way street. People with economic ambitions are desperate to influence government because government has so much power over their success or failure. With regard to separating church and state, this was the genius of the founders who sought to limit religious influence in government. They realized that the best way to keep religion out of government was to limit government's ability to interfere with religion. Likewise, when government can no longer be used by ambitious people to enhance their own wealth, there will be much less incentive for them to use their wealth to influence government.

You stated money needed to be removed from the system. You can't remove it. You can require a great deal of tracking and reporting. That means we all are going to see more personal financial iinformation released and I correctly mentioned that reduces privacy/liberty.

Only if government is allowed to pick winners and losers. In such a system you can send a whole battalian of auditors to Washington to see who is using the money for what and never get a handle on it.

But if you restrict what government can use the money for rather than try restrict who is allowed to have it, you pretty well fix the problem. When they can't use our money for their own benefit, the incentive to try to get more and more of our money is removed.

 

[saveliberty]

Indeed. But how to do that?

I think we need to realize it's a two-way street. People with economic ambitions are desperate to influence government because government has so much power over their success or failure. With regard to separating church and state, this was the genius of the founders who sought to limit religious influence in government. They realized that the best way to keep religion out of government was to limit government's ability to interfere with religion. Likewise, when government can no longer be used by ambitious people to enhance their own wealth, there will be much less incentive for them to use their wealth to influence government.

You stated money needed to be removed from the system. You can't remove it. You can require a great deal of tracking and reporting. That means we all are going to see more personal financial iinformation released and I correctly mentioned that reduces privacy/liberty.

Only if government is allowed to pick winners and losers. In such a system you can send a whole battalian of auditors to Washington to see who is using the money for what and never get a handle on it.

But if you restrict what government can use the money for rather than try restrict who is allowed to have it, you pretty well fix the problem. When they can't use our money for their own benefit, the incentive to try to get more and more of our money is removed.

I still say all that requires reporting and tracking.

 

[Intense]

You stated money needed to be removed from the system. You can't remove it. You can require a great deal of tracking and reporting. That means we all are going to see more personal financial iinformation released and I correctly mentioned that reduces privacy/liberty.

Only if government is allowed to pick winners and losers. In such a system you can send a whole battalian of auditors to Washington to see who is using the money for what and never get a handle on it.

But if you restrict what government can use the money for rather than try restrict who is allowed to have it, you pretty well fix the problem. When they can't use our money for their own benefit, the incentive to try to get more and more of our money is removed.

I still say all that requires reporting and tracking.

By who? More over paid Government Workers?

 

[saveliberty]

Only if government is allowed to pick winners and losers. In such a system you can send a whole battalian of auditors to Washington to see who is using the money for what and never get a handle on it.

But if you restrict what government can use the money for rather than try restrict who is allowed to have it, you pretty well fix the problem. When they can't use our money for their own benefit, the incentive to try to get more and more of our money is removed.

I still say all that requires reporting and tracking.

By who? More over paid Government Workers?

Oh I don't know, maybe some of the Obama Truth Squad will help too...

 

[Foxfyre]

We have known for a long time that assigning a fox to guard the hen house against foxes is a really bad idea.

 

[saveliberty]

Information is power too and government will not give that away.