Ten Simple Questions For Any [American] Leftist

[Metternich]

1. If you believe so much in social equality, why did you save this country's richest people? By saving them, what exactly are you admitting?

2. If social justice's strongest weapon is state backed welfare, what is your solution - if any - of Medicare's bankruptcy in 2012, and Social Security's in 2020?

3. Why do you believe the government should regulate what goes into, and what the body contains; unless it is a baby?

4. Private contracts and private transactions of monetary value are what feel our economy. Why do you believe that taxing these private exchanges are not only one's "patriotic duty" but also economically sound and moral? Is it fair to punish those who 'win?'

5. If America's, Europe's and South America's amalgamation of private corporate entities and state interests have proven to be so disastrous - why would this change under a complete different social system?

6. If full employment is so desirable, why are most Neoliberal and liberal parties against free trade? Do you realize this goes against basic economics, that there must be some sort of demand for production to be started?

7. Where is the SEC outlined in the Constitution? The Department of Education? Commerce Department?

8. Why is it that the corporations who care so little for society, manage to employ and provide the best societal benefits? While the companies that manage social issues first, now seem the biggest drains on the country - why is this?

9. If 'God' and 'heaven' are too subjective, to dependent on faith - why have you merely replaced them with "change" and "hope?" Are they more or less subjective? What has Obama "changed" and why does he use the word "hope?"

10. If John Locke is indeed, as many say, a forerunner of America's particular brand of freedom, explain this:

whenever the Legislators endeavor to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience ... [Power then] devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty, and, by the Establishment of a new Legislative (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own Safety and Security, which is the end for which they are in Society.

Also, explain why you believe "Tea Partiers" are so dismissible. Is John Locke dismissible? Why?

 

[Agnapostate]

These questions seem more suited for a liberal than a leftist. Unfortunately for you, the liberal is actually the enemy of the true leftist. As a socialist, I can assure you of that.

Liberal democracy is actually able to maintain capitalism to a greater extent than its more rightist Anglo-Saxon counterpart through the use of public good provisions and related policies to ensure macroeconomic stabilization, through the use of minimum wage laws to counter the adverse effects that monopsony has on unemployment and underemployment, and through the utilization of the welfare state to maintain the physical efficiency of the workforce, along with maintaining the "psychological efficiency" of the workforce through the usage of appeasement that prevents flirtation with more "subversive" ideologies. This is largely accomplished through the clever technique of progressive taxation, which incorporates an appropriate understanding of the diminishing rate of marginal utility and thus supplies substantial provisions and stabilization without forcing the upper class to sacrifice anything of comparable significance.

 

[mskafka]

1. If you believe so much in social equality, why did you save this country's richest people? By saving them, what exactly are you admitting?

2. If social justice's strongest weapon is state backed welfare, what is your solution - if any - of Medicare's bankruptcy in 2012, and Social Security's in 2020?

3. Why do you believe the government should regulate what goes into, and what the body contains; unless it is a baby?

4. Private contracts and private transactions of monetary value are what feel our economy. Why do you believe that taxing these private exchanges are not only one's "patriotic duty" but also economically sound and moral? Is it fair to punish those who 'win?'

5. If America's, Europe's and South America's amalgamation of private corporate entities and state interests have proven to be so disastrous - why would this change under a complete different social system?

6. If full employment is so desirable, why are most Neoliberal and liberal parties against free trade? Do you realize this goes against basic economics, that there must be some sort of demand for production to be started?

7. Where is the SEC outlined in the Constitution? The Department of Education? Commerce Department?

8. Why is it that the corporations who care so little for society, manage to employ and provide the best societal benefits? While the companies that manage social issues first, now seem the biggest drains on the country - why is this?

9. If 'God' and 'heaven' are too subjective, to dependent on faith - why have you merely replaced them with "change" and "hope?" Are they more or less subjective? What has Obama "changed" and why does he use the word "hope?"

10. If John Locke is indeed, as many say, a forerunner of America's particular brand of freedom, explain this:

whenever the Legislators endeavor to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience ... [Power then] devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty, and, by the Establishment of a new Legislative (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own Safety and Security, which is the end for which they are in Society.

Also, explain why you believe "Tea Partiers" are so dismissible. Is John Locke dismissible?
Why?

1. Are you referring to the TARP legislation? If my memory serves me correctly, this began under the Bush Administration.

2. Hmmmm....we somehow have to decrease the cost of healthcare for starters. As liberal as I am, I somewhat agree with a degree of Tort Reform. I believe that 99.9% of healthcare workers and practitioners have honorable intentions. And I personally would not use Medicare benefits if I had $millions in retirement. I work in healthcare and I see it every day. I've seen a neurologist that grossed over $600,000/year fraudulently receiving medicaid benefits....he was prosecuted. I've seen wealthy business owners with no medical history, on medicaid. Social security...again....if you retire with $millions, do you really need a "government check"? I'm sorry, but I have a problem with that. I don't give a rat's rear how much you paid into the system. You just plain don't need it.....and I don't care who disagrees with that.

3. This one confuses me. Most liberals I know are pro-marijuana legalization, and most democrats have emphatically proclaimed that the "war on drugs", isn't working. That is, if you are referring to drugs. Not every "leftist" is rabidly pro-abortion...myself included. But because I have never been in that situation, I'm not sure how I would respond (rape, incest, etc...). Late-term, partial-birth abortions...NO WAY...under no circumstances should this be allowed.

4. Private industry....fuels the economy. Is that what you were trying to say? No...noone should be punished for "winning". They live in this great country just like I do. I have to pay my fair share of taxes, and so should they. And if they don't pay their fair share, then should they be allowed to collect Medicare and Social Security benefits when they retire? Is that fair to you, or to me? Since SS, and medicare will be bankrupt by "2012". If that's the case, then we need to stop sending the checks and distributing the benefits to the people who don't really need them. That would slash the cost considerably. Or do we cut off the poor 80-year old widow, who can't either afford or qualify for private health insurance....or privately pay the bill with her millions in retirement? $15,000 dollars in taxes deducted from my salary is just a bit more painful than $100,000 for a person that grosses $1 million per year.

To be continued...

Contrary to most neocon beliefs: most democrats, liberals, leftists...actually do work 40+ hours per week. And my day starts in 6 hours.

 

[Pyrite]

1. If you believe so much in social equality, why did you save this country's richest people? By saving them, what exactly are you admitting?

I'm neither a fireman, a police officer, or a soldier, so I have not been in a position to "save" anyone. However, if I was in such a position, I would not discriminate against rich people. I really don't get what you're asking here

2. If social justice's strongest weapon is state backed welfare, what is your solution - if any - of Medicare's bankruptcy in 2012, and Social Security's in 2020?

My solution would have been to not cut taxes for the rich, and not funnel money to Halliburton, so we currently be working with a surplus. Of course, I can't exactly change what's happened. At this point, we're probably going to be in debt for a while, and there's not much we can do about it as both tax hikes and the loss of social programs are unpalatable to the public. However, if I thought the public would accept it, a slight increase in taxes would probably solve this problem.

3. Why do you believe the government should regulate what goes into, and what the body contains; unless it is a baby?

I don't, really. I oppose the sale of highly addictive drugs, but I would support the decriminalization of personal use for all drugs. Otherwise I'm not sure to what you're referring.

4. Private contracts and private transactions of monetary value are what feel our economy. Why do you believe that taxing these private exchanges are not only one's "patriotic duty" but also economically sound and moral? Is it fair to punish those who 'win?'

Taxes are not punishment. You are only able to make money because the infrastructure exists to give you a stable and civil society in which to operate. That infrastructure exists because of taxes.

I'm afraid you have entirely the wrong mindset about taxes.

5. If America's, Europe's and South America's amalgamation of private corporate entities and state interests have proven to be so disastrous - why would this change under a complete different social system?

I don't want that. Government is necessary to provide a safety net and keep the basic infrastructure of the economy from collapsing. I don't particularly want government to nationalize business interests. What is going on right now with the banks and the car companies should be a temporary measure, and I would oppose any attempt to have it extend much past the end of the year.

6. If full employment is so desirable, why are most Neoliberal and liberal parties against free trade? Do you realize this goes against basic economics, that there must be some sort of demand for production to be started?

I don't quite get what this question is trying to ask. it seems like three questions mashed into one. Are you saying that full employment goes against basic economics, or that being "Against free trade" goes against basic economics? And what does either have to do with demand?

I think that the government should pick up the slack of unemployment, with public works projects and similar things. This keeps people who would prefer to be working at work, feeding their families, and not becoming used to idleness. When the economy picks back up and demand for labor increases, the public works projects can be mostly phased out.

I feel that markets require some regulation to ensure that the assets involved are actually worth what they are purported to be, so that the economy does not collapse when suddenly what seemed like gold turns out to be bricks of turd.

7. Where is the SEC outlined in the Constitution? The Department of Education? Commerce Department?

The welfare clause.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Those government organizations were deemed necessary to provide for the general welfare of the United States.

The constitution provides a framework for governance, not a step-by-step manual. IF the constitution had to be amended every time a new department was proposed, nothing would ever get done.

8. Why is it that the corporations who care so little for society, manage to employ and provide the best societal benefits? While the companies that manage social issues first, now seem the biggest drains on the country - why is this?

I'd need some examples before I accepted your premise. What companies "care so little for society"? what companies "manage social issues first"?

9. If 'God' and 'heaven' are too subjective, to dependent on faith - why have you merely replaced them with "change" and "hope?" Are they more or less subjective? What has Obama "changed" and why does he use the word "hope?"

Everything is subjective. And I haven't replaced anything.

Obama has "changed" our policy on torturing detainees, and this gives me "hope" that we might live up to our ideals as a nation again.

10. If John Locke is indeed, as many say, a forerunner of America's particular brand of freedom, explain this:

whenever the Legislators endeavor to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience ... [Power then] devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty, and, by the Establishment of a new Legislative (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own Safety and Security, which is the end for which they are in Society.

Also, explain why you believe "Tea Partiers" are so dismissible. Is John Locke dismissible? Why?

That's a quote from Locke, describing the appropriate time for revolution. This was in part the inspiration for the language in the DOI. The "tea partiers" are dismissible because they demonstrate a singular lack of historical understanding, political understanding, and essentially trivializing the historical event to which their concept referred by trying to draw comparisons between what Britain was doing to the US in the 1700s and what is happening now.

John Locke's philosophy is dismissible, but for different reasons. His idea of absolute rights to property, and the ease of staking one's claim on property others had been enjoying justified by his philosophy, did much to damage many people's quality of life.

 

[editec]

1. If you believe so much in social equality, why did you save this country's richest people? By saving them, what exactly are you admitting?

I didn't save them, Bush II and Obama are saving them.

Niether of them are liberals as far as I can tell.

2. If social justice's strongest weapon is state backed welfare, ?

Welfare isn't social justice's strongest weapon.

what is your solution - if any - of Medicare's bankruptcy in 2012, and Social Security's in 2020

I think we should eat the rich.

3. Why do you believe the government should regulate what goes into, and what the body contains; unless it is a baby?

I don't think that. Few liberals I know do.

4. Private contracts and private transactions of monetary value are what feel our economy. Why do you believe that taxing these private exchanges are not only one's "patriotic duty" but also economically sound and moral?

Taxes are the cost of having government. Beyond that I'm not sure I understand your question.

Is it fair to punish those who 'win?'

Punish? Punish in what way?

5. If America's, Europe's and South America's amalgamation of private corporate entities and state interests have proven to be so disastrous - why would this change under a complete different social system?

How could a completely different system no change the society which undertook it? You haven't really thought these questions through, have you?

6. If full employment is so desirable, why are most Neoliberal and liberal parties against free trade?

I don't think the so called liberals in charge are against free trade. Given that they conistently voted for it, I think you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

I object to the trade policies we currently have because they have cost this nation millions and millions of industrial jobs.

Do you realize this goes against basic economics, that there must be some sort of demand for production to be started?

I realize you don't know what you're talking about well enough to even post questions about this subject.

7. Where is the SEC outlined in the Constitution? The Department of Education? Commerce Department?

Where is the FBI, or the CIA?

8. Why is it that the corporations who care so little for society, manage to employ and provide the best societal benefits? While the companies that manage social issues first, now seem the biggest drains on the country - why is this?

Why do you believe that is true?

9. If 'God' and 'heaven' are too subjective, to dependent on faith - why have you merely replaced them with "change" and "hope?" Are they more or less subjective? What has Obama "changed" and why does he use the word "hope?"

huh?

10. If John Locke is indeed, as many say, a forerunner of America's particular brand of freedom, explain this:

whenever the Legislators endeavor to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience ... [Power then] devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty, and, by the Establishment of a new Legislative (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own Safety and Security, which is the end for which they are in Society.

I had no idea John Locke was one of the floundering fathers.

Also, explain why you believe "Tea Partiers" are so dismissible. Is John Locke dismissible? Why?

The tea partiers are dismissible? I thought they already went home of their own accord.

 

[midcan5]

1. That question makes little sense. Genuinely rich people do not need to be saved, they have enough wealth that the fluctuations of the economy have little effect on their lives. If you mean the banks and financial institutions, they are just that, institutions designed to help. Probably the biggest error Hoover and the republicans made was allowing the financial industry to fail and thus plunging us into the great depression.

2. You make too many assumptions or are simply a puppet of the right. SS insurance is fine so long as the government, and we make sure it stays out of the hands of the buffoons who brought us the current economic meltdown. Medicare needs to be structured differently. Any time a doctor/businessperson can charge a fee for unnecessary procedures and there is no tiered care, greed will motivate enough to make the system unmanageable.

3. I don't believe that for one second, but the first time tainted food kills your loved ones I bet you don't cheer that idea.

4. Private? What does that mean? No contract is private as it is an agreement between two people or more backed by incentives and disincentives. Law, backed by government, is the stick. You need to learn contracts.

5. Large forces in motion don't change direction easily. What is required again is the regulatory structure updated to modern times that FDR created, and a renewed sense of social and economic justice. Empathy as Obama recently noted. Study sometimes corporations after WWII and compare them with the dog-eat-dog corporations Reagan started.

6. That is a myth that anyone with five brain cells today can counter. If a Chinese person makes 2 dollars a day can you live on 2 dollars a day. Full employment is a goal hard to reach and defined lower than 100%. And what does free trade mean? If a southern state gives tax incentives, land and other resources to Toyota is that free trade? Hardly, your lack of education or experience is showing. Offshoring: The Next Industrial Revolution? | Foreign Affairs

7. Most law is worked out in society based on existing conditions, the constitution is just a frame, inside it are amendments and interpretations based on morality and pragmatism. Such is life get used to it.

8. Can you spell walmart? Can you also check most corporations through the 40's till the eighties and the destruction of worker rights and unions. Wal-Mart Watch | Fighting for Wal-Mart Workers | Employee Free Choice Act Wal-Mart Subsidy Watch - brought to you by Good Jobs First

9. That thought is in your mind, patterned by years (?) of conservative wingnut social Darwinist cheap labor republican think tanks and other assorted propaganda. In my patterned brain, that circuit to greed doesn't exist.

10. Locke's comment is still true, Cheney/Bush and the Republicans lost, remember that. And they lost because they failed for many, many years. The System is working, it is you tools who are whining after a loss that was well deserved.


"Freedom depends on how men actually do behave, not upon how they are allowed to behave. It is a matter of character, not of foolproof constitutional devices. For fools are paramount in politics, and there is nothing which they are unable to destroy." p 156 Online Library of Liberty - Titles The Liberal Mind Kenneth Minogue

 

[midcan5]

Which way did he go, which way did he go.....

"The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new." Samuel Beckett

 

[Metternich]

These questions seem more suited for a liberal than a leftist. Unfortunately for you, the liberal is actually the enemy of the true leftist. As a socialist, I can assure you of that.

I'll just stop you there, and ask you to go read some 101 American Politics.

I put the "American" tag there for a reason and everyone has understood its meaning except you.

1. Are you referring to the TARP legislation? If my memory serves me correctly, this began under the Bush Administration.

2. Hmmmm....we somehow have to decrease the cost of healthcare for starters. As liberal as I am, I somewhat agree with a degree of Tort Reform. I believe that 99.9% of healthcare workers and practitioners have honorable intentions. And I personally would not use Medicare benefits if I had $millions in retirement. I work in healthcare and I see it every day. I've seen a neurologist that grossed over $600,000/year fraudulently receiving medicaid benefits....he was prosecuted. I've seen wealthy business owners with no medical history, on medicaid. Social security...again....if you retire with $millions, do you really need a "government check"? I'm sorry, but I have a problem with that. I don't give a rat's rear how much you paid into the system. You just plain don't need it.....and I don't care who disagrees with that.

The release of the 2009 Social Security Trustees Report indicates that the current economic crisis has negatively impacted the Social Security budget. It's now projected that by 2016 Social Security spending will exceed revenues. According to the report, the financial condition of the Social Security program "remains challenging" and "need(s) to be addressed soon." A look at the numbers shows us the severity of the Social Security budget problem. In essence, there is more issues with this large scale Ponzi scheme then a few fat cats living off of their SS checks.

For currently, the Social Security Administration is running a budget surplus. For 2008, Social Security revenues totaled $805 billion and benefit payments and administrative costs were $625 billion, resulting in a surplus of $180 billion. Over the years, the system has run up an overall surplus totaling $2.4 trillion.

What has happened to this surplus? The SSA took in $180 billion more than it spent in 2008. However, the federal government spent this $180 billion on other programs. Since the funds were spent on something other than Social Security, the government declares that it loaned itself the $180 billion, calling such "lending" intragovernmental debt. For all Social Security revenues that are spent on non-Social Security programs, the Treasury department issues bonds to the SSA and those bonds are held in the Trust Fund. Surely we can have confidence in anything called a Trust Fund.

3. This one confuses me. Most liberals I know are pro-marijuana legalization, and most democrats have emphatically proclaimed that the "war on drugs", isn't working. That is, if you are referring to drugs. Not every "leftist" is rabidly pro-abortion...myself included. But because I have never been in that situation, I'm not sure how I would respond (rape, incest, etc...). Late-term, partial-birth abortions...NO WAY...under no circumstances should this be allowed.

I meant in a more literal sense: tobacco, trans-fat and sugar. You seem to agree that abortions are perfectly protected by a woman's "right to privacy" but that she cannot have the "right to privacy" when it comes to smoking, drinking alcohol and sugar laden drinks, trans-fat. All that needs to be taxed, regulated or outlawed. Explanations?

Snippet

Well good, I can't disagree with someone who dislikes taxes.

I'm neither a fireman, a police officer, or a soldier, so I have not been in a position to "save" anyone. However, if I was in such a position, I would not discriminate against rich people. I really don't get what you're asking here

Let's just say, we're talking about the 7.2 Billion dollars going to GMAC, or GM bailouts or Chyrsler bailouts. You know, that recent "news" stuff.

My solution would have been to not cut taxes for the rich,

In spite of ample evidence that the top 1 percent pays some fifty percent of it?

The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per*cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.

american. com /archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

and not funnel money to Halliburton

Statistically, insignificant.

However, if I thought the public would accept it, a slight increase in taxes would probably solve this problem.

It wouldn't. Currently the 'bail outs' (that media-hyped bastard of a word) has cost the U.S. Federal Government 7361917 million (7361917000000000).
cnbc. com /id/27719011

That, of course, doesn't cover the 10 trillion or so in debt Obama's administration has racked up in its budget to win the Special Olympics with. Nor does it count the debt that the Federal Government owes itself; which according to various estimates is a solid 2 trillion or so.

In other words, you couldn't raise taxes high enough, or print enough money, to cover these debts. Indeed, we are looking at a AA credit rating for Uncle Sam.

I don't, really. I oppose the sale of highly addictive drugs, but I would support the decriminalization of personal use for all drugs. Otherwise I'm not sure to what you're referring.Taxes are not punishment. You are only able to make money because the infrastructure exists to give you a stable and civil society in which to operate. That infrastructure exists because of taxes.

That hardly defends a progressive income tax; most infrastructure is privately owned, and what isn't is more often then not paid by the people who use it (i.e. road and petrol taxes). The point remains, however, that you can define and redefine ‘justice’ any way you wish but so long as you give another party the right to tax you under a monopoly power to govern you, they are empty words indeed.

I'm afraid you have entirely the wrong mindset about taxes.I don't want that. Government is necessary to provide a safety net and keep the basic infrastructure of the economy from collapsing.

Explain how the government creates a safety net, and how does it work? Do you have any evidence?

I don't particularly want government to nationalize business interests. What is going on right now with the banks and the car companies should be a temporary measure, and I would oppose any attempt to have it extend much past the end of the year.

The government currently owns Chrysler, that isn't changing anytime soon. The government owns Freddie and Fannie Mac, that isn't changing anytime soon.

I don't quite get what this question is trying to ask. it seems like three questions mashed into one. Are you saying that full employment goes against basic economics, or that being "Against free trade" goes against basic economics? And what does either have to do with demand?

mises. Org /story/3424

Read.

I feel that markets require some regulation to ensure that the assets involved are actually worth what they are purported to be, so that the economy does not collapse when suddenly what seemed like gold turns out to be bricks of turd.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, of the notorious "government-sponsored enterprises" (GSEs) fame, are institutions whose only practical reason for existing was to serve as a vehicle to enrich certain congressional members, stockholders (who had received that stock mainly through the politics of pull, not capitalism) and assorted political hacks. That, however, was the least of our worries - undoubtedly, they had full right to enrich themselves as they saw fit, what they did to do that however is horrific bordering on a high crime against. What they did was accomplished through blatant manipulation that any private company would not be able to get away with.

Repackaging them as triple-A-rated mortgage-backed securities and throwing them onto the broader securities market. This way, the entire system, from private lenders to Fannie and Freddie to securities firms, was systematically stripped of all the natural private incentives that, under normal circumstance, would be present to balance financial risks along the entire chain."

In short, the last entity to regulate anything is the government.

The welfare clause. Those government organizations were deemed necessary to provide for the general welfare of the United States.

How does the debauchry and inefficiency of welfare do anything but destroy the American Dream?

The constitution provides a framework for governance, not a step-by-step manual. IF the constitution had to be amended every time a new department was proposed, nothing would ever get done.

Where would we be without the Department of Education? Would kids be educated by State and Private schools? Yes. Also, consider, where did you get those odd ideas of public schools being good? From a book? No? Did you get the ideas that a public institution for education from a public institution for ‘education?’ What, if anything, is wrong with such a statement?

Where would we be without the Security and Exchange Committee? The world’s headquarter for all business conducted? Yes.

Where would we be without the Commerce Department? Freer? Yes.

National Communications System
National Domestic Preparedness Office
National Infrastructure Protection Center
Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office
Environmental Measurements Laboratory
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
Federal Computer Incident Response Center
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Environmental Management (Energy Department)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
Economic Development Administration
Employment Standards Administration
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Denali Commission
Commission of Fine Arts
Commission on Helping to Enhance the Livelihood of People around the Globe
Commission on International Religious Freedom
Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
Community Oriented Policing Services
Community Planning and Development
Bureau of Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade (Treasury)
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (Justice)
Bureau of Reclamation
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
Bureau of International Labor Affairs

Tell me the reason for having each one of those government departments, and how they do their job better then their private and State counterparts.

I'd need some examples before I accepted your premise. What companies "care so little for society"? what companies "manage social issues first"?Everything is subjective. And I haven't replaced anything.

Intel, Microsoft, Google and Apple; the biggest targets of every worlds monopoly hegemony and yet - look how many of their products you use. Apple consistently gets the lowest (or close enough) environmental ratings, and yet - look at how many of their products you use. None of them are unionized, and most have official policies against collective bargaining.

Then look at our ‘social giants.’ GM, Ford, Chrysler - bankrupt and beyond repair.

I feel I have made my point.

Obama has "changed" our policy on torturing detainees, and this gives me "hope" that we might live up to our ideals as a nation again.

No “waterboarding” he says, but what about a real guide on what that entails? You are to eager, have to much subjective faith, in a terrestial being. Notice how easily you feel that ‘waterboarding’ is over because the memo says it is over; what about “boardingwater?” The memo uses a trendy, media inspiried term, instead of any actual concrete details but you assume they are there: why? Hope that we might live up to our ideals as a nation? Have you ever considered what your hopes are, what your ideals are?

10. If John Locke is indeed, as many say, a forerunner of America's particular brand of freedom, explain this:

whenever the Legislators endeavor to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience ... [Power then] devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty, and, by the Establishment of a new Legislative (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own Safety and Security, which is the end for which they are in Society.

Also, explain why you believe "Tea Partiers" are so dismissible. Is John Locke dismissible? Why?

That's a quote from Locke, describing the appropriate time for revolution. This was in part the inspiration for the language in the DOI. The "tea partiers" are dismissible because they demonstrate a singular lack of historical understanding, political understanding, and essentially trivializing the historical event to which their concept referred by trying to draw comparisons between what Britain was doing to the US in the 1700s and what is happening now.

I ask, in essence, “why you dismiss them,” and you reply “I dismiss them because I dismiss them.”

What is wrong with such a statement?

John Locke's philosophy is dismissible,

So in short, America is dismissible?

but for different reasons. His idea of absolute rights to property,

Yes, what was he thinking when he said ‘A is A’ and ‘what is mine is what is mine?’ Silly fellow.

and the ease of staking one's claim on property others

If you can find one quote on this, I will thank that post - in disbelief - so many times you will become the new administrator.

had been enjoying justified by his philosophy, did much to damage many people's quality of life.

In which ways?

1. If you believe so much in social equality, why did you save this country's richest people? By saving them, what exactly are you admitting?

I didn't save them, Bush II and Obama are saving them. Niether of them are liberals as far as I can tell.

Do you still have ‘hope’ that Obama will ‘change’ anything? Liberal or not?

Punish? Punish in what way?

“Bad Johnny, let me take away your toy truck.”

“Bad Johnny, let me take away your truck.”

See the resemblance?

I don't think the so called liberals in charge are against free trade. Given that they conistently voted for it, I think you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

So you consider the Democrat party less liberal then the Republican have?

I object to the trade policies we currently have because they have cost this nation millions and millions of industrial jobs.

Contradicts your previous statement - I suggest you look at your premises again.

I had no idea John Locke was one of the floundering fathers.

Look at what I posted again - check your premises.

I have to say, of the three responses I’ve replied too - yours seems the most damaging to your own cause.

1. That question makes little sense. Genuinely rich people do not need to be saved, they have enough wealth that the fluctuations of the economy have little effect on their lives. If you mean the banks and financial institutions, they are just that, institutions designed to help. Probably the biggest error Hoover and the republicans made was allowing the financial industry to fail and thus plunging us into the great depression.

So institutions that are “designed to help” take precedence over institutions that just exist? For what, if any, reasons do you have to support such a syllogism?

You, of course, realize that Roosevelt won on a platform of less government interference, and a balanced budget? That is saying what, exactly, of Hoover?

You make too many assumptions or are simply a puppet of the right. SS insurance is fine so long as the government, and we make sure it stays out of the hands of the buffoons who brought us the current economic meltdown. Medicare needs to be structured differently. Any time a doctor/businessperson can charge a fee for unnecessary procedures and there is no tiered care, greed will motivate enough to make the system unmanageable.

All I have to say is look at my above post on the subject; fact is no puppet of the right - sad as it is for me to say that.

I don't believe that for one second, but the first time tainted food kills your loved ones I bet you don't cheer that idea.

Yes, because I’m such an idiot I am going to go down to the meat market and buy a chunk of moldly meat and feed it raw to my loved ones.

4. Private? What does that mean? No contract is private as it is an agreement between two people or more backed by incentives and disincentives. Law, backed by government, is the stick. You need to learn contracts.

You need to read about developing economies, especially third world, and their system of contracts - because they resemble most closely original economic contracts; at least, in a more honest and pure sense. I need to learn nothing, you need to learn your history and stop making the failure of an assumption that before governments there was no transfers of wealth. That before the SEC, you assume there was no stock market. That before monopoly commissions you assume there were no monopolies.

Large forces in motion don't change direction easily. What is required again is the regulatory structure updated to modern times that FDR created, and a renewed sense of social and economic justice. Empathy as Obama recently noted. Study sometimes corporations after WWII and compare them with the dog-eat-dog corporations Reagan started.

You mean the bloated, corporate behemoths that then effectively capitulated to German and Japanese manufactures? Those? How quaint and naïve you are! Where did you come up with these ideas, is there a book you can read - maybe - on this subject so that I can catch myself up on whatever it is you believe in?

That is a myth that anyone with five brain cells today can counter. If a Chinese person makes 2 dollars a day can you live on 2 dollars a day. Full employment is a goal hard to reach and defined lower than 100%. And what does free trade mean? If a southern state gives tax incentives, land and other resources to Toyota is that free trade? Hardly, your lack of education or experience is showing. Offshoring: The Next Industrial Revolution? | Foreign Affairs[/url]]

That was so filled with ignorance of even the most simplest grasps of some long running debate of generally speaking, Keynesian thought and (generally speaking) Austrian thought that I am deeply disappointed. Go educate yourself.

Most law is worked out in society based on existing conditions, the constitution is just a frame, inside it are amendments and interpretations based on morality and pragmatism. Such is life get used to it.

So you believe that law is worked out in society based on existing conditions? For instance… The Bible? That is one of the, if not largest, preexisting conditions of our society and yet, it is excluded from our state. Contrary to what you believe, and obviously, a silver bullet to the whole argument.

8. Can you spell walmart? Can you also check most corporations through the 40's till the eighties and the destruction of worker rights and unions. Wal-Mart Watch | Fighting for Wal-Mart Workers | Employee Free Choice Act Wal-Mart Subsidy Watch - brought to you by Good Jobs First

So union membership was growing in the 50s and 60s because unions were being destroyed? That makes sense. Oh Wal-Mart, you silly corporation, what are you thinking with your whole ‘cheap goods to make ends meet’ Gestalt. Don’t you know - it’s the laborer not the consumer that matters! Once again, how quaint. Do you have any additional material in which I can become accosted to an ideology that absolutely hates the people who buy things, and corporations that try to deliver cheap goods?


10. Locke's comment is still true, Cheney/Bush and the Republicans lost, remember that. And they lost because they failed for many, many years. The System is working, it is you tools who are whining after a loss that was well deserved. [/quote]

Whining? Is that what criticism is today. Glad to see the spirit of Voltaire is alive and well within you.

"Freedom depends on how men actually do behave, not upon how they are allowed to behave. It is a matter of character, not of foolproof constitutional devices. For fools are paramount in politics, and there is nothing which they are unable to destroy." p 156 Online Library of Liberty - Titles The Liberal Mind Kenneth Minogue

So you hate hippies, hate the anti-war movement, hate those anti-trade demonstrators and yet support many of their causes? How interesting… I dismiss this by retorting that the best behavior, is best exemplified by another - infinitely more known and praised - author: Thoreau. In short: Civil Disobedience. Personally, I would hope that you pick up the novel and educate yourself.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

*Phew* I'm glad you made it explicit this is for [America] leftists, because those questions make absolutely no sense to me.

 

[Metternich]

You dodged a fairly large bullet, I'll give you that.

European politics and American politics are like... Heh, trying to get an old Nintendo cartridge work on my Wii.

 

[rayboyusmc]

When a leftist posts that this is what they stand for, it might be more believable.

 

[Agnapostate]

Please, there are many American socialists, myself included.