Heh, I know that feeling. You can insult me/my family/my religion/whatever all day long but call me a liar and them's fighting words. You do seem to be going off a bit easily agitated in these threads today though, between this and our discussion earlier.
Then again, text sucks for communication, as we all well know.
Then again, text sucks for communication, as we all well know.
Amen, brother. And, yeah, I apologize for misunderstanding your gist on the other thread -- for a minute it seemed like you were advocating the opposite stance than is actually the case.
Then again, text sucks for communication, as we all well know.Amen, brother. And, yeah, I apologize for misunderstanding your gist on the other thread -- for a minute it seemed like you were advocating the opposite stance than is actually the case.
No worries. I'm hardly a morning person, so I could have been a lot more clear if I was more awake. Or something.
Some of those folks also say thing similar to your position in front of one group then turn around and say they want to ban all private firearms possession in front of another group.Are you seriously calling me a liar? I don't have a lot of scruples, but my word is one of them. So is it really impossible I might be in favor of some firearms, but not all -- or must I be some sort of two-faced sleaze? You and I have gotten along in the past, BT, but this is way over the line. Two possibilities -- you can apologize and backpedal a bit ("oh, I didn't mean you personally"), or I can call you a yellow coward who wouldn't dare say that in person. Your answer can help you decide whether to read the rest -- I wrote it giving you the benefit of the doubt, and assuming it was just a thoughtless slip on your part, making that sort of a blanket statement without offering to back it up with live ammo.
Maybe I'm writing it poorly, but I think you're dead wrong here. I never said (nor do I understand your reading) that your position was theirs. Unless I am utterly missing something I don't have a damned thing to apologize for. I wouldn't hesitate to say the same thing in person. I'm not some internet tough guy who hides behind the web. I'm very easy to find. Subtlety and duplicity are not my strong points.
I believe I made it clear that many of them would articulate a position like yours (that millions of Americans share) then say something that goes way beyond that. Such is the way of the political operative.
I just don't see where I implied you were a liar. Maybe a third party could weigh in, but I think your inference is wholly unfounded.
The gun control lobby has hidden behind incrementalism for decades. These quotes simply expose the movements duplicity.
I never said (nor do I understand your reading) that your position was theirs.
That's all I needed. Thank you.
Let's understand this clearly -- my position is not theirs. I am in favor of clear-cut laws that apply only in specific circumstances -- and if that can't be worded, then I'd rather do without a law altogether, rather than find it's too broad. I agree there are people who feel the opposite way, but they can, and indeed must be, circumvented by care and precision.
Obviously we aren't going to agree regarding your position on tactical weapons. Millions of people like me have somehow managed to avoid "blowing away large numbers of your fellow citizens at a time" with our evil "assault weapons" which is an absurdly vague term.In my mind -- and a vague law is no law at all, so exact definitions count, "anything capable of being easily modified to allow for fully-automatic fire." Where "fully automatic" excludes "semi-automatic," again by definition. And I never said they were "evil" -- they're tools, like anything else. The intended use of that particular tool is to kill a lot of people, as in a mass battle. There's no need to use it for that, but if not, its ownership is fairly pointless -- it doesn't do anything else better than any other more appropriate tool. BTW, do you really believe that everyone should be allowed unrestricted access to nuclear weapons?
Historically assault weapon legislation entirely fails to meet the definition you laid out. The term assault weapon as opposed to assault rifle was essentially invented out of whole clothe for the purpose of political spin. A great many weapons can be converted to select fire or full auto by any competent machinist. The basis for the Clinton "assault weapon" ban was cosmetic and political. The ban covered bayonet lugs for heaven's sake; how many people are bayoneted every year? The premise is absurd on its face. I never said that you said they were evil, and I never intended to infer that you were stupid enough to to ascribe morality to an inanimate object. I was merely referring to the spin. I would disagree that the intended use of tactical weapons is to kill a lot of people. While there may be some truth to that, the point of a tactical weapon is to provide a tactical advantage by using the appropriate tool (assuming the owner doesn't own the weapon for some purely sporting purpose like competition). You can say, ".....its ownership is fairly pointless -- it doesn't do anything else better than any other more appropriate tool.", but I don't think you or the legislature get to decide that for tens of millions of other people.
As to your nuclear weapon question, I will simply say that we should be able to resist the state with competitive weaponry to the military although I have issues with NBC weapons.
Yes my position is predictably well outside the mainstream.
Historically assault weapon legislation entirely fails to meet the definition you laid out.
I agree that a lot of past laws were terrible. Thankfully, the Supreme Court has largely struck them down. I agree that a lot of idiots have historically enacted, or tried to enact, a lot of laws so devoid of meaning that they can be applied to convict nearly every living person of some BS "crime." Yes, those laws should be opposed, and stricken down, wherever they are found. However, there have been one or two laws historically that were well-written, and which do exactly what they're supposed to do (granted, they were most certainly not "assault weapon" laws, but one needs to start somewhere to find a working model). The trick is learn from history how to do things correctly.
I'm against private ownership of nukes because I know, personally, a number of people so stupid that they would detonate them in their own neighborhoods "for fun," and I'd rather they didn't have the opportunity. Their right of ownership gets trumped by their neighbors' rights not to be vaporized.
I'm against private ownership of nukes because I know, personally, a number of people so stupid that they would detonate them in their own neighborhoods "for fun," and I'd rather they didn't have the opportunity. Their right of ownership gets trumped by their neighbors' rights not to be vaporized.
I can't help but agree that a lot of people are stunningly stupid. I have many issues with nuclear biological and chemical weapons because they tend to be awesomely indiscriminate, but if we are at the point where we have to limit the rights of most people because a lot of people are painfully stupid we are in deep deep trouble as a society.
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within
limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add
'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's
will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." -Thomas Jefferson
Bitter Thorn wrote:
"Assault weapon" laws frequently target rifles and shotguns used for hunting, so I can't agree with "and you could still have them even if all those people quoted got their way".
Definitions. It's possible to outlaw murder without outlawing butchering cows, isn't it? Or are all anti-murder people trying to take away your steak? A law -- any law at all -- is only as good as how it's written and interpreted. And I know you're something of an anarchist, but I'm assuming you're not advocating making murder legal, and abolishing all laws completely -- if so, there's no point of connection between you and the rest of society, and certainly no point in any discussion with you.
Once again let me point out the distinction between an anarchist and a minarchist. An anarchist basically believes the state is an unacceptable evil. I believe the state is a necessarily evil that must be minimized. My view of the role of the state can be summarized thusly:
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within
limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add
'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's
will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." -Thomas Jefferson
The states role is to protect the equal rights of all.
I would love to find out how many Americans actually believe the binary political system represents their point of view, but I place less trust in the American media (who presumably would be responsible for collecting the data) than I do in the poltroons that cling to the teat of *coprotocracy*.
Zo
EDIT: I'm far less clever than I thought I was re: latin/greek wordplay.
EDIT: I'm far less clever than I thought I was re: latin/greek wordplay.
You earned a snicker though, well done.
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
Obviously I agree, which is why I phrased the point the way I did (paralleling that quotation).
Clearly we have a continuum:
*
*
*
Things we think it's OK for our surly neighbor Chuck to own:
YES---|--------------------|-------------------|-----------------|---NO
----Stick--------------Hand-gun---------------Uzi---------Hydrogen bomb
I think all reasonable people would agree that stick-control is off the table. I also think all reasonable people would agree that private citizens shouldn't have hydrogen bombs. Therefore, it's isn't that we have opposing viewpoints, but rather that will simply fall on different spots on the same continuum.
So what's my point? The right to keep and bear arms doesn't specify exactly what is meant by "arms". It's pretty clear that rifles were intended to be included, just as it's pretty clear the hydrogen bombs weren't. The exact spot where the rights of the individual and the rights of other members of society are in equilibrium is understandably subject to debate.
For my part, I'm fine with handgun ownership, but I think automatic weapons are too much. On the other hand, like it or not, attempts to outlaw firearms altogether are completely unconsitutional.
Clearly we have a continuum:
|--------------------|-------------------|-----------------|
Stick------------Hand-gun---------------Uzi-----------Hydrogen bombI think all reasonable people would agree that stick-control is off the table. I also think all reasonable people would agree that private citizens shouldn't have hydrogen bombs. Therefore, it's isn't that we have opposing viewpoints, but rather that will simply fall on different spots on the same continuum.
So what's my point? The right to keep and bear arms doesn't specify exactly what is meant by "arms". It's pretty clear that rifles were intended to be included, and it's pretty clear nuclear bombs weren't. I can why there's debate over the stuff in between. For my part, I'm fine with handgun ownership, but think automatic weapons are too much. On the other hand, like it or not, attempts to outlaw firearms altogether are completely unconsitutional.
I'm not sure I would agree with the continuum model. The verbiage of the 2nd amendment isn't my main focus either. It merely enumerates the right of self defense. For me the core issue is self ownership and the fundamental human right of self defense and the means thereto. Freedom of the press doesn't mean much if the state controls printing presses, TV and radio broadcasting, and the internet. It tends to turn into the "You have absolute freedom to do what we allow." kind of thing. It kind of reminds me how driving on the governments roads is now a privilege not a right.
In any case for me RKBA (Right to Keep and Bear Arms) is about the fundamental human right of self defense from predatory individuals or governments.
I'm not sure I would agree with the continuum model. The verbiage of the 2nd amendment isn't my main focus either. It merely enumerates the right of self defense. For me the core issue is self ownership and the fundamental human right of self defense and the means thereto. Freedom of the press doesn't mean much if the state controls printing presses, TV and radio broadcasting, and the internet. It tends to turn into the "You have absolute freedom to do what we allow." kind of thing. It kind of reminds me how driving on the governments roads is now a privilege not a right.
What I guess I don't understand is this: Government tyranny seems the same to me as corporate tyranny. Whether the state controls the printing press, or corporations do, as an individual, I'm out of luck.
It's one of the fundamental problems I associate with the conservative mindset: The government (at least theoretically out for everyone) is bad, but big corporations (who are openly out for themselves) are good. The fact that we "willingly" give money to corporations (try living in modern American without giving money to a corporation) means only that we funnel resources to the most ruthlessly efficient tyrant.
In any case for me RKBA (Right to Keep and Bear Arms) is about the fundamental human right of self defense from predatory individuals or governments.
Yes, but what arms? Do you believe you should be able to have a nuclear missile silo in the garage? I'm guessing no, which means we do, in fact, have a continuum.
I guess I'd put it this way: It's not the government we should be worried about per se, but rather excessive concentration of power. I don't see how smaller government helps; it just leads to unfettered abuse of power by corporations.
I guess I'd put it this way: It's not the government we should be worried about per se, but rather the concentration of power. I don't see how smaller government helps; it just leads to unfettered abuse of power by corporations.
You're making really good points. Please keep posting.
Yes, but what arms? Do you believe you should be able to have a nuclear missile silo in the garage? I'm guessing no, which means we do, in fact, have a continuum.
Whatever level of armament that it would take to make the government nervous about pissing off a sizable chunk of the population if they were all to be armed in a similar fashion.
I guess I'd put it this way: It's not the government we should be worried about per se, but rather excessive concentration of power. I don't see how smaller government helps; it just leads to unfettered abuse of power by corporations.
Only if the corporations have been directing legislation in their favor so that they are damned near untouchable through legal means. Sort of how things have been going for the past few decades.
Yes, but what arms? Do you believe you should be able to have a nuclear missile silo in the garage? I'm guessing no, which means we do, in fact, have a continuum.Whatever level of armament that it would take to make the government nervous about pissing off a sizable chunk of the population if they were all to be armed in a similar fashion.
Fine...that's your spot on the continuum. We could talk about exactly what level of armament that is, but there's no need, as all I'm really trying to get at is that gun control isn't a binary issue.
I guess I'd put it this way: It's not the government we should be worried about per se, but rather excessive concentration of power. I don't see how smaller government helps; it just leads to unfettered abuse of power by corporations.
I would say the corporations are less evil than the government in general. That doesn't make them paragons of virtue by any means, but I would point out that the ability of corrupt well funded groups to do harm is greatly enhance by a massive and corrupt government. Much of what corporations do that is so harmful is authorized, allowed, and facilitated by the government; the spill in the gulf is a fine example. BP screwed the pooch, but so did the MMS, interior, OSHA, EPA, congress and at least the past 3 presidents.
Jeremy Macdonald's thoughts on the nature of regulatory failure in the US are pretty interesting too.
If the government becomes less massive and less invasive I believe it can become less corrupt and incompetent, but this is not the nature of bureaucracy. Bureaucracy has a disturbing tendency to grow like a cancer or parasite until it kills its host. The private sector is not immune to this tendency either, but they either tend to lean their operation or they fail. This is one of the huge problems with bailouts. It fouls the system. It rewards and entrenches bad business at the cost of better businesses and tax payers. Massive and corrupt government facilitates the destruction of meritocracy. Business is no longer about providing the best goods or services at the most competitive cost. It's now becoming about who owns the most politicians. If their business model and practices are incompetent so what? We own enough politicians to be too big to fail so we just get bailed out.
I agree with your point about decentralization of power being the goal. I don't agree that smaller government necessarily leads to that power reverting to corporate hands. One of the things I like about free market capitalism is that we get to vote with every one of our dollars. I see a lot of value to that kind of decentralization of power, but I also think a great deal of governmental power needs to return to the states, counties, and towns. The current model where SCOTUS uses the commerce clause to justify virtually unlimited meddling by the federal government in the affairs of states, localities, and individuals just isn't working. States and localities need to be responsible for generating more of their own revenues and setting more of their own policies.
I still see government as the force with the most power to harm and destroy us, but it's not the only threat to our freedom by any means.
Canada's economy is suddenly the envy of the world...due to increased regulation.
Some highlights:
Economy grew at a rate of 6.1% in the first quarter.
Housing market florishing/no mortgage metldown.
3/4 of the jobs lost in the recession have been recovered.Unless the gub'mint wants people going back to keeping their cash in a matress, they need to implement stricter banking regulations so that people will once again have faith in the banks. I'm not for the gov't regulating the day to day aspects of peoples' lives, but when it comes to institutitions that people are all but required to use, there needs to be some oversight. These corporations are in it for a profit after all, and their necessity and ubiquity pretty much ensures that the capitalist system isn't going to work as far as self-regulation is concerned.
Canada is in a bubble, just like the US is. There is a high chance of serious economic problems in the near future.
When cab drivers are flipping houses, that is a good sign the bubble is about to burst. If I had a house in Vancouver, I would put it up for sale today.
The problem can't be solved by increasing regulation, because the cause of the bubble is the central bank of Canada, which, if it is anything like the US Central bank, is completely unregulated.
Im not sure what precisely is meant by unregulated central bank and I'm not well versed in How the Americans do things so I can't really compare and contrast. What I do know is that the Bank of Canada is a Crown Corporation, meaning its wholly owned by the tax payers and run by the government. Our tax dollars pay their salaries. That said there are a bunch of special rules in place meant to keep the Crown Corporation at arms length from the government itself in order to allow it to set policy independent of the government. In theory its possible for the government to get around this as the Central Bank has to follow a directive from the Minister of Finance if the Minister of Finance is willing to jump through a bunch of hoops however that is, in reality uncharted territory as no Minister of Finance has ever given such written directives to the Central Bank - that said the Finance Minister and the Governor of the Bank of Canada tend to be in close communication and its the government that appoints new Bank of Canada Governors so they tend to be on the same page.
Historically speaking if the Liberals are in Power (which they are about two thirds of the time) they have proven extremely adept at timing elections for high points in the economy which helps them get re-elected.
As to your bubble article - yeah Vancouver is in a bubble and Toronto and Montreal might be building toward one as well. However Canadian real estate bubbles are not the same thing as what happened recently in the US. They tend to be localized to a handful of cities. Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver are always in a state of either watching a bubble burst, or going into a bubble - always. Its on a roughly 10 year cycle. You'd think that this would mitigate things and it does, a little, but the reality is the real estate is valuable and the consumers keep bidding it back up until they can't afford it and it comes crumbling down. Its partly mitigated because the banks can't give some one a mortgage and then sell that mortgage to some one else, they have to keep it - so they are a more cautious about giving loans - you have to be able to pay.
Hence there are a number of significant differences between the Bubble in the US and any one that might occur in Canada. Canadian bubbles are limited geographically, by and large, to three cities. America's was very wide spread.
Canadian bubbles pop routinely, In America no one had ever seen a housing bubble and it was presumed that housing prices would forever go up, various stake holders and consumers got themselves in very deep under that presumption. In Canada, If I'm in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver I could practically set my watch by them. I'm old enough, in my mid thirties, to personally remember the last real estate bubble popping in Toronto.
Canadian Real Estate Bubbles are localized in time. Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver will all see a bubble burst in the next 15 years at the latest but they probably will not pop at the same time. Obvously once the Bubble in the US started in one location it spread like wildfire all over the country.
Canadian Banks are much more regulated then their American counterparts where - in particular they can't sell the debt they buy. It makes them cautious. In America a whole industry was spawned trying to sell mortgages to people that had no hope of paying them.
In essence if the housing market in Vancouver pops, and it looks more like when it pops, even for Vancouverites its not that bad. A lot of people will own houses not as valuable as they once where but very few will have taken loans out against their houses value. You just keep paying the mortgage and the housing market recovers in about three years. Its a crummy time to sell and move to France but for most consumers they'll get by and your job at that advertising firm is probably fine.
Furthermore for me in Toronto the bubble popping in Vancouver is basically irrelevant, its a local phenomena and does not effect me on the other side of the country.
The two big economic concerns for Canada are low interest rates which may have caused more wide spread buying then normal by some that might have a hard time affording it when interest rates do finally rise and the fact that most of our trading partners, especially the U.S. remain in the dumps and can't afford that much of what we want to sell them.
One of the things I like about free market capitalism is that we get to vote with every one of our dollars.
Yes, but that only works when markets are functioning correctly. Supposedly conservative groups often seem to oppose all regulation, despite the fact that the underlying economics only work if the market is subject to at least some degree of regulation (prevention of collusion, prevention of fraud, etc.) to keep things fair. Industry has shown, time and time again, that they won't hesitate to interfere with the free market in pursuit of profit.
I'm actually most comfortable when the balance of power between industry and government is roughly even so they keep each other in check.
<SNIP>The current model where SCOTUS uses the commerce clause to justify virtually unlimited meddling by the federal government in the affairs of states, localities, and individuals</SNIP>
I can't disagree with this one at all: It's bad.
Here's a huge government folly link . I really want to tell these guys off.
Revolting.
How can one claim to be for small government, while criminalizing victimless, consensual acts between adults? What business does any government, large or small, have in the bedroom?
|
Here's a huge government folly link . I really want to tell these guys off.
Those guys need help, as in psychiatric. It's a shame, but sadly, governments and states are full of all types of people whose thinking is twisted in similar ways.
Here's a huge government folly link . I really want to tell these guys off.Revolting.
How can one claim to be for small government, while criminalizing victimless, consensual acts between adults? What business does any government, large or small, have in the bedroom?
This kind of idiotic crap makes me want to scream. As a decades long registered Republican and a state delegate this is just plain embarrassing. With 2 wars, exploding debt, Obamacare, the gulf disaster, massive government expansion, corruption, and incompetence. Is this seriously what we want in our state platforms? Is this how we fight for less invasive less stupid government? This is such a great example of rearranging deck chairs as the Titanic goes down!
Here at the Colorado state assembly the Log Cabin Republican booth wasn't the busiest by any means, but at least folks were civil. I don't think they even got a hundred people signed up for their news letter, but at least no county in Colorado advanced a resolution or platform plank like this.
*facepalm*
Here's a huge government folly link . I really want to tell these guys off.
Good example!
A poke at "laissez faire"/hands-off libertarianism.
I laughed so hard I started coughing.
I think I need to step out for a smoke.
One of the things I like about free market capitalism is that we get to vote with every one of our dollars.Yes, but that only works when markets are functioning correctly. Supposedly conservative groups often seem to oppose all regulation, despite the fact that the underlying economics only work if the market is subject to at least some degree of regulation (prevention of collusion, prevention of fraud, etc.) to keep things fair. Industry has shown, time and time again, that they won't hesitate to interfere with the free market in pursuit of profit.
I'm actually most comfortable when the balance of power between industry and government is roughly even so they keep each other in check.
<SNIP>The current model where SCOTUS uses the commerce clause to justify virtually unlimited meddling by the federal government in the affairs of states, localities, and individuals</SNIP>I can't disagree with this one at all: It's bad.
I don't think it's accurate to characterize even the most libertarian conservatives of wanting no regulation at all. I think you would find virtually universal support for things like upholding contracts and prosecuting fraud and theft. Of course that is a far cry from the kind of government interference we have today which skews markets terribly. As a minarchist I agree that government has a limited role to play in commerce. Things like sound monetary policy, having an impartial judiciary, and prosecuting actual crimes like fraud and theft and real damage to public and private property (such as holding BP accountable for the gulf) are all entirely legitimate functions of government in my view, and my view is definitely at the anti government end of the curve for the GOP.
I suppose this might fit the continuum model better, but Anarcho-capitalists are the only group that comes readily to mind who want zero government and zero regulation on markets.
I don't think it's accurate to characterize even the most libertarian conservatives of wanting no regulation at all. I think you would find virtually universal support for things like upholding contracts and prosecuting fraud and theft. Of course that is a far cry from the kind of government interference we have today which skews markets terribly. As a minarchist I agree that government has a limited role to play in commerce. Things like sound monetary policy, having an impartial judiciary, and prosecuting actual crimes like fraud and theft and real damage to public and private property (such as holding BP accountable for the gulf) are all entirely legitimate functions of government in my view, and my view is definitely at the anti government end of the curve for the GOP.
I suppose this might fit the continuum model better, but Anarcho-capitalists are the only group that comes readily to mind who want zero government and zero regulation on markets.
It doesn't help when a Republican Senator publicly characterizes holding BP responsible for the gulf as a "shakedown." To me, that's pretty close to advocating no regulation. So I think they're out there, though it could be a tiny fringe.
I tend to view large groups as dangerous: Anything from a formal group with pooled resources (be it a government or a corporation), to an all out riot. As the saying goes, a person is smart, but people are stupid. I guess I'm saying I still don't understand why you have so little trust for government in particular, but I do appreciate the discussion.
I tend to view large groups as dangerous: Anything from a formal group with pooled resources (be it a government or a corporation), to an all out riot. As the saying goes, a person is smart, but people are stupid.
That's it in a nutshell.
|
I tend to view large groups as dangerous: Anything from a formal group with pooled resources (be it a government or a corporation), to an all out riot. As the saying goes, a person is smart, but people are stupid.That's it in a nutshell.
And yet when focused a group can accomplish so much more then an individual.
One word
NASA
I don't think it's accurate to characterize even the most libertarian conservatives of wanting no regulation at all. I think you would find virtually universal support for things like upholding contracts and prosecuting fraud and theft. Of course that is a far cry from the kind of government interference we have today which skews markets terribly. As a minarchist I agree that government has a limited role to play in commerce. Things like sound monetary policy, having an impartial judiciary, and prosecuting actual crimes like fraud and theft and real damage to public and private property (such as holding BP accountable for the gulf) are all entirely legitimate functions of government in my view, and my view is definitely at the anti government end of the curve for the GOP.
I suppose this might fit the continuum model better, but Anarcho-capitalists are the only group that comes readily to mind who want zero government and zero regulation on markets.
It doesn't help when a Republican Senator publicly characterizes holding BP responsible for the gulf as a "shakedown." To me, that's pretty close to advocating no regulation. So I think they're out there, though it could be a tiny fringe.
I tend to view large groups as dangerous: Anything from a formal group with pooled resources (be it a government or a corporation), to an all out riot. As the saying goes, a person is smart, but people are stupid. I guess I'm saying I still don't understand why you have so little trust for government in particular, but I do appreciate the discussion.
The GOP spanked him for that and made him apologize, but I agree with his criticism of the approach. The administration strong armed BP into setting up the 20 billion dollar account and letting an administration appointee administer it, and they did this for nakedly political PR reasons. This is not a good precedent for due process and the rule of law.
I don't think it's fair to infer from his shakedown criticism that he wants virtually no regulation on the oil industry. I can't speak to his legislative and committee record off the top of my head.
The Republican rebuke of this guy was also pure political PR that I think runs contrary to a legitimate principal.
I think BP should be held accountable for every dime lost from this disaster, but I think we should also follow the rule of law.
Of course the rule of law did not serve many of Exxon's victims very well, so have we come to a place where the rule of law is increasingly impractical? If so I'd say we've reach a very dangerous place as a nation.
And yet when focused a group can accomplish so much more then an individual.I tend to view large groups as dangerous: Anything from a formal group with pooled resources (be it a government or a corporation), to an all out riot. As the saying goes, a person is smart, but people are stupid.That's it in a nutshell.
There are always exceptions, but for the most part I view that as a bad thing.
|
|
There are always exceptions, but for the most part I view that as a bad thing.And yet when focused a group can accomplish so much more then an individual.I tend to view large groups as dangerous: Anything from a formal group with pooled resources (be it a government or a corporation), to an all out riot. As the saying goes, a person is smart, but people are stupid.That's it in a nutshell.
I feel, that this is an American thing, where individualism out ways group dynamics. Many times a group has done amazing things that an individual could not. As a group we are more then the sums of our parts. One day we will reach the stars and it will not be the work of just one man.
Now bureaucracy on the other hand..........Shudders~~
<SNIP> Many times a group has done amazing things that an individual could not. As a group we are more then the sums of our parts. One day we will reach the stars and it will not be the work of just one man.</SNIP>
Good point.
|
|
<SNIP> Many times a group has done amazing things that an individual could not. As a group we are more then the sums of our parts. One day we will reach the stars and it will not be the work of just one man.</SNIP>Good point.
I just feel we spend too much time thinking of the individual and not enough realizing as a group we have accomplished something amazing. We can continue to do so as well. We just have to curb our pessimism.
The Promise That Keeps on Breaking
Transparency is a matter of pan-ideological popularity. Libertarians and limited-government conservatives believe that transparency will reveal excesses and waste in government, suggesting that private solutions are better. Liberals believe transparency will validate government programs and root out corruption. Transparency is a win-win bet. A functional, cleaner government is better than a dysfunctional, wasteful, and corrupt one - even to libertarians.
The Promise That Keeps on Breaking
Transparency is a matter of pan-ideological popularity. Libertarians and limited-government conservatives believe that transparency will reveal excesses and waste in government, suggesting that private solutions are better. Liberals believe transparency will validate government programs and root out corruption. Transparency is a win-win bet. A functional, cleaner government is better than a dysfunctional, wasteful, and corrupt one - even to libertarians.
What is a 'limited government conservative?' No one believes in unlimited government. The implication is that those who disagree with you about the appropriate size and scope of government must necessarily espouse beliefs which are outrageous.
What is a 'limited government conservative?' No one believes in unlimited government. The implication is that those who disagree with you about the appropriate size and scope of government must necessarily espouse beliefs which are outrageous.The Promise That Keeps on Breaking
Transparency is a matter of pan-ideological popularity. Libertarians and limited-government conservatives believe that transparency will reveal excesses and waste in government, suggesting that private solutions are better. Liberals believe transparency will validate government programs and root out corruption. Transparency is a win-win bet. A functional, cleaner government is better than a dysfunctional, wasteful, and corrupt one - even to libertarians.
Dohp! I failed to put the quote in quotations.
I believe "limited government conservative" is intended as a contrast with neoconservatism, so your inference strikes me as odd.
I find many beliefs espoused by statists to be outrageous, but mine is a minority opinion, and I don't think that was the writer's intent.
I wasn't sure where to put this.
