It is interesting how people can look at the same problem -- urban decay and economic decline in Detroit -- and attribute it to completely different (and very often opposed) causes.
Free Trade. Corporate Greed. Business hostile government policy. Immigration. Foriegn currency manipulation.
It just isn't that simple. The truth is probably that all of these factors, and hundreds more, played a part. No one person is ever going to know for sure. I'm not saying it isn't worth thinking about. I'm saying we should all -- irrespective of the political or philosophical lens through which we view the world -- bear in mind that there is no single answer.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
But the federal government isn't going to lessen its own power voluntarily. That's in the interest of nobody in D.C. So it's up to the states to fight for their rights under the Constitution again. And that'll be a long road after the Civil War.I'm not sure I've ever agreed with you before on so many things in a row. Sweet!
+1
I've been reading on Baker v. Nelson of late, and Scalia's comments (as reported here favor a 'limited federal powers' reading.
I have argued that certain functions are reserved to the Federal Government (roads, defense, etc) but they're clearly stated in the Federal constitution. The rest should be left to the states and/or us. What I get out of Scalia's comments is that just because something is constitutional, doesn't mean it's right. After all, the 14th, 19th, and 26th ammendments changed the constitution.
Aside
And yes, this applies to both parties. Scalia got it right that flag burning, while meant to inflame, is protected (provider you don't use someone else's flag). Stop passing laws to ban it. If it gets your knickers in a bunch, amend the constitution.
It is interesting how people can look at the same problem -- urban decay and economic decline in Detroit -- and attribute it to completely different (and very often opposed) causes.
Free Trade. Corporate Greed. Business hostile government policy. Immigration. Foriegn currency manipulation.
It just isn't that simple. The truth is probably that all of these factors, and hundreds more, played a part. No one person is ever going to know for sure. I'm not saying it isn't worth thinking about. I'm saying we should all -- irrespective of the political or philosophical lens through which we view the world -- bear in mind that there is no single answer.
+1
Right wing reactionaries like Glenn Beck like to paint the US as on the road to Communism because of Social Justice. What Beck and his ilk do not realize is that the end results of capitalism and socialism are not that far off. Extreme socialism leads to a society that only Mao and Stalin could dream of where a human being becomes a gear in a giant machine with no voice or identity that can be easily replaced. Extreme capitalism isn't much better, that is a world where everything has a price, your life, your organs, you name it.THe kind of capitalism we want: what made the US a world power and allowed generous wealthy people to impact the world around them.
What you get with socialism: someone else has to provide your military, you run a risk of despotism because the same elites feel you are wamr enough and have enough food, so they can build another rape room, and when you finalyl realize it's too late and you have to pull the belt pretty tight, your self-entitled youth throw rocks at your policemen, because you told them education, healthcare, housing, food and (really....this is sick) WiFi were free.
Give me specifics, not halcyon-based nostalgia mixed with desire/acknowledgement of social inequality, demonization of opposing views and condemnation of youth(which is as old as the tides). What are the gears and fuel of the type of capitalism of which you speak?
Am I the only one finding the opposition to the reading of the constitution annoying?
I assume this is a reference to the 112th Congress opening with a reading of the Constitution. What is the reaction? If people are whining they should suck it up.
|
|
The Constitution was set up under the assumption that people are greedy, that they work selfishly for their own ends. It set up three branches of federal government in order to use that fundamental facet of human behavior to the benefit of good governance. If one branch gets too strong, the others are meant to work to yank back on the power, and the two weaker, working together for their own self interest, will keep the one from getting too much power - keep it from overwhelming them.
It also set up this balance of power between the states and the federal government. Europe already showed them that they didn't think centralized government was the complete answer. The failure of the Articles of Confederation taught them that a league of disconnected states didn't offer enough cohesion for safety or prosperity. A federal system, wherein certain powers and responsibility necessarily had to lie with the national government, and all those that aren't necessarily federal functions lie with the states was meant to keep the strengths of both systems, and minimize the weaknesses.
Many things have lead to the co-opting of state power by the feds. The biggest is probably the Civil War. Read speeches prior to the war, America is referred to as "these united states", now it's "The United States". When you think of yourself, do you think of yourself as a Michigander? A Texan? A Floridian? Or do you think of yourself as an American? This isn't just a political shift. It's a cultural shift. These things don't change quickly.
Moves to remove more state powers have been and continue to be popularized today. National Senators used to be elected by state legislatures. Now they're elected by popular vote in the state. I think this was a net loss for state power. When a senator knows that another body of legislaters is going to vote for or against them, they can't just "toe the party line" during campaign season. Legislators knows if you're doing the same job they're doing well or poorly. They also have a vested interest in choosing someone that will protect their power as a state government.
Moves to get rid of the electoral college are also an attempt to lessen the power of individual states versus federal power.
It's been said a lot, especially this election season, but all politics are local. I think the Tea Party candidates elected to national office this past year are only going to introduce federal gridlock. At this point, I think that's okay. Freeze federal expansion for a bit and let's get the states to show some backbone. I like what Chris Cristie is doing in New Jersey. Refusing to put more state money down the black hole of giant intrastate projects which are already over budget. Refusing government money because of the "strings" attached. Not playing favorites with the "targetted" cuts, but saying "Everyone's budget is slashed X% across the board. You figure out where, in your department, these cuts will come from." I've found here in Texas that Texans have a strong sense of state identity (Michigan didn't).
The nice thing is, getting involved in local government is something we can all do. Changing federal policy? Yeah. We rail against it, complain about it, excoriate the stupidity, but generally all this evokes is a feeling of helpless inevitability. But we can effect local politics.
So...get involved. That's what I like most about the Tea Party. Whether you agree with them, or disagree with them, they're getting people involved and interested in politics again. If they annoy you, get involved to counter them. If they inspire you, get involved so they don't fail.
Give me specifics, not halcyon-based nostalgia mixed with desire/acknowledgement of social inequality, demonization of opposing views and condemnation of youth(which is as old as the tides). What are the gears and fuel of the type of capitalism of which you speak?
You just made me look up "halcyon." Thanks. :)
It is interesting how people can look at the same problem -- urban decay and economic decline in Detroit -- and attribute it to completely different (and very often opposed) causes.
Free Trade. Corporate Greed. Business hostile government policy. Immigration. Foriegn currency manipulation.
It just isn't that simple. The truth is probably that all of these factors, and hundreds more, played a part. No one person is ever going to know for sure. I'm not saying it isn't worth thinking about. I'm saying we should all -- irrespective of the political or philosophical lens through which we view the world -- bear in mind that there is no single answer.
True enough, though we can still look at comparisons with other parts of the country that are apparently thriving and growing. What is it about these parts of the country that is different than those parts that are decaying? It is easy to hand-wave it all and say it is too complicated to even begin to analyze, but that doesn't really get anyone anywhere and leads people to believe that conditions are totally outside of their control it doesn't matter what kinds of policies or decisions they make.
Give me specifics, not halcyon-based nostalgia mixed with desire/acknowledgement of social inequality, demonization of opposing views and condemnation of youth(which is as old as the tides). What are the gears and fuel of the type of capitalism of which you speak?
Another thing -- what is it with the demonization of the poor? And why are so many of the smugly condescending folks usually doing the demonizing themselves poor, but conveniently exempt from the numerous horrendous shortcomings of those lazy, entitled poor people? :P
I wonder where this is going to play out.
Give me specifics, not halcyon-based nostalgia mixed with desire/acknowledgement of social inequality, demonization of opposing views and condemnation of youth(which is as old as the tides). What are the gears and fuel of the type of capitalism of which you speak?Another thing -- what is it with the demonization of the poor? And why are so many of the smugly condescending folks usually doing the demonizing themselves poor, but conveniently exempt from the numerous horrendous shortcomings of those lazy, entitled poor people? :P
I'm not sure how the poor are being demonized. I think I need some help understanding what you're saying here.
I certainly see the rich being demonized for "not paying their fair share" which I find absurd.
I'm not sure how the poor are being demonized. I think I need some help understanding what you're saying here.
I certainly see the rich being demonized for "not paying their fair share" which I find absurd.
Really? It seems central to neoconservative ideology. Poor people are poor because they don't want to work. They're stupid/lazy/uneducated, etc. It's all over the place. On the other hand, if you mean in this thread, you're right -- my lament was much more general, which is why no one is quoted in it. :)
As for the rich paying/not paying "their share"...we'll, you're probably starting from an assumption with which I disagree -- that the rich are rich because they largely earned their wealth. But that's a whole other thread.
Give me specifics, not halcyon-based nostalgia mixed with desire/acknowledgement of social inequality, demonization of opposing views and condemnation of youth(which is as old as the tides). What are the gears and fuel of the type of capitalism of which you speak?Another thing -- what is it with the demonization of the poor? And why are so many of the smugly condescending folks usually doing the demonizing themselves poor, but conveniently exempt from the numerous horrendous shortcomings of those lazy, entitled poor people? :P
I'm not sure how the poor are being demonized. I think I need some help understanding what you're saying here.
I certainly see the rich being demonized for "not paying their fair share" which I find absurd.
Check out the average income of people who are prosecuted for tax evasion and fraud. Sure, not everyone who is rich is a criminal, but the ones that are give the ones that aren't a bad name. Still, you could say this for any population.
It is interesting how people can look at the same problem -- urban decay and economic decline in Detroit -- and attribute it to completely different (and very often opposed) causes.
Free Trade. Corporate Greed. Business hostile government policy. Immigration. Foriegn currency manipulation.
It just isn't that simple. The truth is probably that all of these factors, and hundreds more, played a part. No one person is ever going to know for sure. I'm not saying it isn't worth thinking about. I'm saying we should all -- irrespective of the political or philosophical lens through which we view the world -- bear in mind that there is no single answer.
While the issues are certainly complex the endlessly reoccurring theme seems to be bad policy and the incestuous relationship between the biggest corporate powers and the government. The government seems to have a penchant for magnifying the worst aspects of commerce like they did with the bailouts and stifling the best aspects like innovation and responsiveness by creating barriers to entry and growth. I don't give the short sighted corporations a pass for their stupidity, but if the government let stupid and short sighted corporations fail and go bankrupt then the remaining institutions would probably learn something from the failed institution's incompetence. Without politicians picking the winners and losers in this vaguely fascist incestuous system institutions that did not absurdly over leverage themselves and take a longer more prudent view would tend to rise to the top in the long run. Instead the government chooses to reward the worst actors for their awful incompetence, and government perpetuates the worst aspects of this cycle while adding new layer of regulation to "fix" the problem that only serve to punish smaller more innovative businesses with more burdens and barriers to growth and entry.
Our current system is certainly not free market competition. I'm not saying that smaller government is the only thing needed to fix our broken system, but I certainly believe it's the most important thing.
I'm not sure how the poor are being demonized. I think I need some help understanding what you're saying here.
I certainly see the rich being demonized for "not paying their fair share" which I find absurd.
Really? It seems central to neoconservative ideology. Poor people are poor because they don't want to work. They're stupid/lazy/uneducated, etc. It's all over the place. On the other hand, if you mean in this thread, you're right -- my lament was much more general, which is why no one is quoted in it. :)
As for the rich paying/not paying "their share"...we'll, you're probably starting from an assumption with which I disagree -- that the rich are rich because they largely earned their wealth. But that's a whole other thread.
I can't speak for the neocons on this, but the many conservatives that I know don't hate poor people. Rather they recognize the the very programs that pretend to be there to help the poor are often hugely destructive to the people they are supposed to be helping, and they waste huge sums of tax dollars doing it. Sure lots of people defraud and game the system, but many people just find themselves entangled in a labyrinth of bureaucracy that punishes them for trying to get back on their own feet. Some folks have been helped by these programs, but many get trapped in a system that basically destroys their lives. Recognizing the massive failures of the war on poverty is not the same as hating poor people by any stretch.
|
I'm not sure how the poor are being demonized. I think I need some help understanding what you're saying here.
I certainly see the rich being demonized for "not paying their fair share" which I find absurd.
Really? It seems central to neoconservative ideology. Poor people are poor because they don't want to work. They're stupid/lazy/uneducated, etc. It's all over the place. On the other hand, if you mean in this thread, you're right -- my lament was much more general, which is why no one is quoted in it. :)
As for the rich paying/not paying "their share"...we'll, you're probably starting from an assumption with which I disagree -- that the rich are rich because they largely earned their wealth. But that's a whole other thread.
The central conservative ideology is that the poor people are poor because the government has punished honest work ethic and entrepreneurship. Rewarded behavior that is unbecoming of a civilized people.
Check out the average income of people who are prosecuted for tax evasion and fraud. Sure, not everyone who is rich is a criminal, but the ones that are give the ones that aren't a bad name. Still, you could say this for any population.Give me specifics, not halcyon-based nostalgia mixed with desire/acknowledgement of social inequality, demonization of opposing views and condemnation of youth(which is as old as the tides). What are the gears and fuel of the type of capitalism of which you speak?Another thing -- what is it with the demonization of the poor? And why are so many of the smugly condescending folks usually doing the demonizing themselves poor, but conveniently exempt from the numerous horrendous shortcomings of those lazy, entitled poor people? :P
I'm not sure how the poor are being demonized. I think I need some help understanding what you're saying here.
I certainly see the rich being demonized for "not paying their fair share" which I find absurd.
I would just point out that I presume the IRS is more likely to prioritize prosecuting lager dollar cases of tax fraud than which would presumably involve wealthier people.
I would just point out that I presume the IRS is more likely to prioritize prosecuting lager dollar cases of tax fraud than which would presumably involve wealthier people.
Poor people don't have much opportunity to perpetrate any kind of tax fraud. Hell, I do my own taxes, and I have close to zero opportunity, except for just blatantly not reporting something.
More sources of income = more potential loopholes to exploit. People who own businesses have even more opportunities to find loopholes. The one way in which a "fair tax" scheme might work is if all the loopholes were closed due to the simplicity of the tax system.
I would just point out that I presume the IRS is more likely to prioritize prosecuting lager dollar cases of tax fraud than which would presumably involve wealthier people.Poor people don't have much opportunity to perpetrate any kind of tax fraud. Hell, I do my own taxes, and I have close to zero opportunity, except for just blatantly not reporting something.
More sources of income = more potential loopholes to exploit. People who own businesses have even more opportunities to find loopholes. The one way in which a "fair tax" scheme might work is if all the loopholes were closed due to the simplicity of the tax system.
I think the US tax system is great example of what is wrong with the federal government. The tax system has much more to do with social and economic engineering than revenue generation to fund the government. It's an absurdly complex and irrational system that grows and gets worse no matter which party is in power. It's intrusive, punitive, wasteful, and driven by graft to let politicians pick winners and losers. It seems to exemplify Washington DC.
I think the US tax system is great example of what is wrong with the federal government. The tax system has much more to do with social and economic engineering than revenue generation to fund the government. It's an absurdly complex and irrational system that grows and gets worse no matter which party is in power. It's intrusive, punitive, wasteful, and driven by graft to let politicians pick winners and losers. It seems to exemplify Washington DC.I would just point out that I presume the IRS is more likely to prioritize prosecuting lager dollar cases of tax fraud than which would presumably involve wealthier people.Poor people don't have much opportunity to perpetrate any kind of tax fraud. Hell, I do my own taxes, and I have close to zero opportunity, except for just blatantly not reporting something.
More sources of income = more potential loopholes to exploit. People who own businesses have even more opportunities to find loopholes. The one way in which a "fair tax" scheme might work is if all the loopholes were closed due to the simplicity of the tax system.
I do agree actually, and our tax system suffers in much the same way.
I would be in favour of a system that works on a gentle curve. As wealth increases, level of taxation increases, but graduated in such a way that a person is always better off if they earn more, while they still give a larger proportion of there wealth.
I think the US tax system is great example of what is wrong with the federal government. The tax system has much more to do with social and economic engineering than revenue generation to fund the government. It's an absurdly complex and irrational system that grows and gets worse no matter which party is in power. It's intrusive, punitive, wasteful, and driven by graft to let politicians pick winners and losers. It seems to exemplify Washington DC.
No doubt -- our tax system is a cluster*uck.
You obviously don´t know the german tax laws - somebody said that 90% of all tax laws in the world are written in german, and its probably true. There is a yearly tax law to have all the changes in one place - last year, there have been 180 changes. German tax laws are hellishly complex, not even the tax officials know all details.
Stefan
You obviously don´t know the german tax laws - somebody said that 90% of all tax laws in the world are written in german, and its probably true. There is a yearly tax law to have all the changes in one place - last year, there have been 180 changes. German tax laws are hellishly complex, not even the tax officials know all details.
Well, no offense, but what did you expect? They're GERMAN! (I say this as a proud German-American.)
You obviously don´t know the german tax laws - somebody said that 90% of all tax laws in the world are written in german, and its probably true. There is a yearly tax law to have all the changes in one place - last year, there have been 180 changes. German tax laws are hellishly complex, not even the tax officials know all details.
Stefan
I'm ignorant of the German tax code, but I would point out that US tax code is so incomprehensible that our highest ranking government finance officials like the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Ways and Means committee in Congress (who write the tax laws) have made massive unlawful mistakes. They are either massively corrupt and/or stupid (and they write and enforce tax law) or the US federal tax system is epically FUBAR'ed. I guess all of the above is a valid answer too.
Well, just one example: if you were to buy a donkey, you would have to pay a sales tax of 19% - if you would buy a mule instead, it would only be 7%. Sales tax is a prime example of the government wanting to steer things through different levels of taxes and failing utterly, resulting in a nightmarish tax jungle. Carrots - 7%, carrot juice - 19%. Sweet potatoes 19%, normal ones - 7% This list could be continued endlessly. Luckily, there are only two percentages of sales taxes... If Germans do something, they do so thoroughly, it is said - and if they make a mess of things, its a complete mess...
I'm ignorant of the German tax code, but I would point out that US tax code is so incomprehensible that our highest ranking government finance officials like the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Ways and Means committee in Congress (who write the tax laws) have made massive unlawful mistakes. They are either massively corrupt and/or stupid (and they write and enforce tax law) or the US federal tax system is epically FUBAR'ed. I guess all of the above is a valid answer too.You obviously don´t know the german tax laws - somebody said that 90% of all tax laws in the world are written in german, and its probably true. There is a yearly tax law to have all the changes in one place - last year, there have been 180 changes. German tax laws are hellishly complex, not even the tax officials know all details.
Stefan
Or they simply made mistakes. It is after all possible for even the brightest people to make mistakes. Even when things are very simple. The fact that these individuals made mistakes does not neccissarily point to any of your conclusions.
That said, from what little i understand of the US system, it is fubar.
I'm ignorant of the German tax code, but I would point out that US tax code is so incomprehensible that our highest ranking government finance officials like the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Ways and Means committee in Congress (who write the tax laws) have made massive unlawful mistakes. They are either massively corrupt and/or stupid (and they write and enforce tax law) or the US federal tax system is epically FUBAR'ed. I guess all of the above is a valid answer too.You obviously don´t know the german tax laws - somebody said that 90% of all tax laws in the world are written in german, and its probably true. There is a yearly tax law to have all the changes in one place - last year, there have been 180 changes. German tax laws are hellishly complex, not even the tax officials know all details.
Stefan
Or they simply made mistakes. It is after all possible for even the brightest people to make mistakes. Even when things are very simple. The fact that these individuals made mistakes does not neccissarily point to any of your conclusions.
That said, from what little i understand of the US system, it is fubar.
I disagree that the facts don't point to my conclusion, but speculations about motives and the like are inherently hazardous. In any case these mistakes are absolutely unacceptable. If the head of the DEA accidentally makes a mistake and gets caught with hundreds of thousands of dollars of cocaine then I think he should die in prison. It's detestable that the powerful get to use the government to get away with breaking laws that land working folks in prison.
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Huh. I just want to be clear: my making statements about the version of capitalism that made us a superpower is a reference to a capitalism that never existed, and though one guy should watch how he posts lest I call him unAmerican, throwing around Glenn Beck's name as a pejorative is acceptible reasoning, and I am building straw men.
Maybe I should just give in and be cool and insult people. Probably work better on Facebook, too. :b
I don't know about Portugal, but the problems in Spain have little to do with corrupt government officials, outright lying about the financial situation and excessive public services...The current problems of Greece are homemade, for the most part. Corrupt government officials, outright lying about the financial situation, excessive public services used as cash cow (you only needed to be employed with the government for a few years to have the right to a nice, life-long pension there). Now, these things are getting cut harshly, leading to protests - giving up what you were used to is never nice. Similar things are true for Spain, Portugal and Italy, with Ireland being caught hard by the crisis. The southern European states had economies that were not that robust to begin with, and the crisis laid the problems bare. The unwillingness to do real reforms in time (the problems were known long enough) added to it, and now it comes all at once.
My understanding is that the problem with Spain is similar to the American problem. Lots of banks especially these really small ones that proliferate the country (they have an unpronounceable name and are historically run by priests) have assets. Lots of assets but those assets are in loans for new real estate development and anyone who is looking around can see that there is no demand for new real estate development in Spain. Quite the opposite.
So outsiders that are supposed to lend Spanish banks money are increasingly concerned. They don't believe that the banks assets are actually worth what the financial statement says they are worth. Thus no one wants to lend these banks money and if that state of affairs keeps up then the Spanish Banks themselves are in danger of collapse and if one or two go the whole system tends to unravel extremely quickly.
I disagree that the facts don't point to my conclusion, but speculations about motives and the like are inherently hazardous. In any case these mistakes are absolutely unacceptable. If the head of the DEA accidentally makes a mistake and gets caught with hundreds of thousands of dollars of cocaine then I think he should die in prison. It's detestable that the powerful get to use the government to get away with breaking laws that land working folks in prison.I'm ignorant of the German tax code, but I would point out that US tax code is so incomprehensible that our highest ranking government finance officials like the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Ways and Means committee in Congress (who write the tax laws) have made massive unlawful mistakes. They are either massively corrupt and/or stupid (and they write and enforce tax law) or the US federal tax system is epically FUBAR'ed. I guess all of the above is a valid answer too.You obviously don´t know the german tax laws - somebody said that 90% of all tax laws in the world are written in german, and its probably true. There is a yearly tax law to have all the changes in one place - last year, there have been 180 changes. German tax laws are hellishly complex, not even the tax officials know all details.
Stefan
Or they simply made mistakes. It is after all possible for even the brightest people to make mistakes. Even when things are very simple. The fact that these individuals made mistakes does not neccissarily point to any of your conclusions.
That said, from what little i understand of the US system, it is fubar.
Your statement here is very specific. You said caught with.
For a start, why on earth should possession or even use of cocaine be illegal? Seriously, I thought you disliked government having power over the individual. Why on earth should a man die in prison simply for being in possession of a substance? And why should i as a tax payer fund his very expensive arrest, prosecution and incarceration.
You also get into the murky territory of why exactly the man was in possession of the cocaine. It is certainly possible that he possessed it, so that he could supply it to a network of dealers, but it is also possible that the cocaine is in his possession because it has been placed there to incriminate him. Under the latter conditions would you still want to see him die in jail?
I know you meant possessed with the intent to sell, but I get the feeling that because you feel strongly about the subject of drugs, you do not carry through the rigorous thought or open mindedness I know your capable of to this subject.
Governmental abuse of power is a bad thing, but I do not believe it is worse than say corporate abuse of power. Government is not uniquely more corrupt that business, in fact, government has done a lot to protect the public from some of the worst cases of intentional corporate conspiracy, such as the tobacco industries frankly evil(and I do not use this word lightly) intentional and extended efforts to cover up the harmful effects of tobacco smoke, the harmful effects of second hand tobacco smoke and the addictive nature of nicotine. The heads of said tobacco companies (along with a small cartel of scientists who implemented the tobacco industries campaign of misinformation) did vastly more real damage to many more real humans than your hypothetical DEA man would have been able to do with said cocaine. They have used wealth and corporate power to ensure that they have not been imprisoned, despite knowingly selling a highly dangerous and addictive substance, for more than sixty year.
If you want to see said DEA man die in prison, why is it you are not calling for these business men die that same death.
|
|
For a start, why on earth should possession or even use of cocaine be illegal? Seriously, I thought you disliked government having power over the individual. Why on earth should a man die in prison simply for being in...
For me, People who sell Alcohol, Cigarettes, and Illicit Pharma are profiting from the destruction of the weak and vulnerable...and are thus undermining the State (an act of Treason); and Those who buy it are condoning Treason.
SO unless you personally grew your own cocaine/Tobacco or grew your own grain for fermentation...you condone treason and need to be dragged from your bed at 3 am and shot dead along with your family.
For a start, why on earth should possession or even use of cocaine be illegal? Seriously, I thought you disliked government having power over the individual. Why on earth should a man die in prison simply for being in...For me, People who sell Alcohol, Cigarettes, and Illicit Pharma are profiting from the destruction of the weak and vulnerable...and are thus undermining the State (an act of Treason); and Those who buy it are condoning Treason.
SO unless you personally grew your own cocaine/Tobacco or grew your own grain for fermentation...you condone treason and need to be dragged from your bed at 3 am and shot dead along with your family.
Ah, but he could have stolen the cocaine at gun point from said traders and decided that he was going to keep it as a sovounier. ;) A powerful lesson to those around him of the results of trading in destructive drugs, no?
For a start, why on earth should possession or even use of cocaine be illegal? Seriously, I thought you disliked government having power over the individual. Why on earth should a man die in prison simply for being in...
I've seen plenty of lives wrecked by drugs, even without the legal troubles that often accompany addiction to illegal substances. Despite this, I'm in favor of liberalizing some of the United States' more draconian drug laws, because I believe the social and economic costs of enforcing them are higher than the problems caused by legalization. I also suspect that many drugs would not be as damaging if they were subject to FDA oversight regarding purity and dosage.
On the other hand, there are two very good reasons for cocaine to remain illegal:
1.) Its addiction can be brutally powerful, even from the first use. It's the drug of choice for criminals who want to bind others to their will. I'm willing to legalize addictive substances, but not ones that can addict their victims quicker than the victims can realize something's wrong.
2.) In my experience, cocaine and crystal methamphetamine are the two substances that turn someone from a normal human into an lying, arrogant, self-involved scumbag the fastest. Have you ever dealt with a habitual cocaine or crystal meth user? They tend to be really annoying.
Drugs that destroy people should be tightly controlled. Granted, you can´t do that with alcohol and tobacco, as their use is centuries old and widespread over most of the world (we all know what good the prohibition era in the US did). Even more important is teaching a responsible usage of these legal drugs IMO - making the consumption illegal until you are 21 does nothing to give young people the chance to learn resposible usage. (as an aside, buying wine and beer is legal from age 16, hard alcohol from age 18 in Germany. You are allowed to drink beer and wine from age 14 if accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. Does not work perfectly, but excessive drinking is mostly a problem if young people are on their own.)
The higher the destructive potential, the tighter the controls need to be IMO. Legal or illegal is not really the problem there, controlling the traffic and usage is. I firmly advocate protecting people from harming themselves here, even if it leads to limiting free will (how much free will do you have once you are addicted anyways?).
Stefan
Granted, you can´t do that with alcohol and tobacco, as their use is centuries old and widespread over most of the world (we all know what good the prohibition era in the US did).
Given enough time, even cocaine would fall in the above category ;>
Regarding Greece: they should not have been bailed out, when you lie there are consequences. And that brings me to the problem with the Euro, we cannot kick anyone out who doesn't behave (and there are a lot of countries who fall into that category).
Belgium: Since yesterday, the possibility of a new government has been reduced to zero. A negotiator pulled out and talks are stalled until the king appoints someone new.
Spain: quite possibly the next bailout candidate, the market hopes for a bailout => guaranteed $$$ for them.
Portugal: in the same boat as Spain I would say.
Italy: Berlusconi is corrupt, this is just a fact. South Italy is poor compared to the North, but I believe that Italy as a whole is hiding some vast unemployment numbers => they are not doing so well.
Detroit: the pictures just tell all, such a shame.
I disagree that the facts don't point to my conclusion, but speculations about motives and the like are inherently hazardous. In any case these mistakes are absolutely unacceptable. If the head of the DEA accidentally makes a mistake and gets caught with hundreds of thousands of dollars of cocaine then I think he should die in prison. It's detestable that the powerful get to use the government to get away with breaking laws that land working folks in prison.Your statement here is very specific. You said caught with.
For a start, why on earth should possession or even use of cocaine be illegal? Seriously, I thought you disliked government having power over the individual. Why on earth should a man die in prison simply for being in...
I think you missed BT point entirely. I don't believe he was saying such punishment was appropriate. I believe he was saying that if those in power enforce such punishment on the weak and powerless, then they should be held to the same standard. If ignorance is no defense for the weak and powerless, then it should be even less of a defense for the powerful and educated, most especially for those whose area of expertise is where the infraction has occurred.
I disagree that the facts don't point to my conclusion, but speculations about motives and the like are inherently hazardous. In any case these mistakes are absolutely unacceptable. If the head of the DEA accidentally makes a mistake and gets caught with hundreds of thousands of dollars of cocaine then I think he should die in prison. It's detestable that the powerful get to use the government to get away with breaking laws that land working folks in prison.Your statement here is very specific. You said caught with.
For a start, why on earth should possession or even use of cocaine be illegal? Seriously, I thought you disliked government having power over the individual. Why on earth should a man die in prison simply for being in...
I think you missed BT point entirely. I don't believe he was saying such punishment was appropriate. I believe he was saying that if those in power enforce such punishment on the weak and powerless, then they should be held to the same standard. If ignorance is no defense for the weak and powerless, then it should be even less of a defense for the powerful and educated, most especially for those whose area of
expertise is where the infraction has occurred.
How many 'weak and powerless' individuals who are likely to spend the rest of their lives in prison for possession of the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of Cocaine? After all mules are generally fairly limited in the amount they can transport and other poor and vulnerably people rarely have the resources to get that much cocaine.
Huh. I just want to be clear: my making statements about the version of capitalism that made us a superpower is a reference to a capitalism that never existed,
Dude, there're more words in the post you're referencing. If you selectively ignore some of them, of course what's left ends up being ridiculous. :P
How many 'weak and powerless' individuals who are likely to spend the rest of their lives in prison for possession of the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of Cocaine? After all mules are generally fairly limited in the amount they can transport and other poor and vulnerable people rarely have the resources to get that much cocaine.
Actually, it's not uncommon for the Mexican drug smugglers to hire unsuspecting dupes to mule drugs across the border. They'll find some innocent-looking fool (older folks or mothers are popular choices) and offer them a few grand to bring drugs across the border. They threaten these unfortunates that failure to cooperate could result in unfortunate consequences for them or their families.
If the US Border Patrol or DEA seems to be particularly attentive the day the drugs come through, the druggies then "snitch them off", warning the authorities that a load of drugs is coming across. When caught, these mules are loaded with just enough drugs to ensure the authorities are fully occupied while the main drug shipment comes through, reducing the chance of actual gang members being caught.
The dupes don't know anything about the smugglers' operations, so they aren't able to make a deal with the authorities or otherwise harm the gang. To add to the overall malice of the scheme, the cartels then extort from these dupes' families, telling them they owe for the drugs "they lost". Now in prison, the dupes are threatened with assault by imprisoned gang members.
In my experience, cocaine and crystal methamphetamine are the two substances that turn someone from a normal human into an lying, arrogant, self-involved scumbag the fastest.
You haven't met too many heroin junkies, I guess. Although, to be fair, they go from "normal humans" not to "lying, arrogant, self-involved scumbag humans," but rather to "amoral undead slaves."
In my experience, cocaine and crystal methamphetamine are the two substances that turn someone from a normal human into an lying, arrogant, self-involved scumbag the fastest.You haven't met too many heroin junkies, I guess. Although, to be fair, they go from "normal humans" not to "lying, arrogant, self-involved scumbag humans," but rather to "amoral undead slaves."
It's all in the type of high and to an extent how it is administered/used. I would avoid a serious junkie of any of the above substances like the plague.
It's all in the type of high and to an extent how it is administered/used. I would avoid a serious junkie of any of the above substances like the plague.In my experience, cocaine and crystal methamphetamine are the two substances that turn someone from a normal human into an lying, arrogant, self-involved scumbag the fastest.You haven't met too many heroin junkies, I guess. Although, to be fair, they go from "normal humans" not to "lying, arrogant, self-involved scumbag humans," but rather to "amoral undead slaves."
I will say that in my experience, of the three, methheads are the most damaged in the sense that even if you successfully get them off the drugs they're never quite right in the head again.
(I'm sure that happens with other drugs too, it just seems to be more of a hallmark of meth.)
Huh. I just want to be clear: my making statements about the version of capitalism that made us a superpower is a reference to a capitalism that never existed, and though one guy should watch how he posts lest I call him unAmerican, throwing around Glenn Beck's name as a pejorative is acceptible reasoning, and I am building straw men.
Maybe I should just give in and be cool and insult people. Probably work better on Facebook, too. :b
FYI your bit about Capitalism is blatantly begging the question...
...not that I expect you to listen. You've clearly got it all figured out.
"Your statement here is very specific. You said caught with.
For a start, why on earth should possession or even use of cocaine be illegal? Seriously, I thought you disliked government having power over the individual. Why on earth should a man die in prison simply for being in possession of a substance? And why should i as a tax payer fund his very expensive arrest, prosecution and incarceration.
You also get into the murky territory of why exactly the man was in possession of the cocaine. It is certainly possible that he possessed it, so that he could supply it to a network of dealers, but it is also possible that the cocaine is in his possession because it has been placed there to incriminate him. Under the latter conditions would you still want to see him die in jail?
I know you meant possessed with the intent to sell, but I get the feeling that because you feel strongly about the subject of drugs, you do not carry through the rigorous thought or open mindedness I know your capable of to this subject.
Governmental abuse of power is a bad thing, but I do not believe it is worse than say corporate abuse of power. Government is not uniquely more corrupt that business, in fact, government has done a lot to protect the public from some of the worst cases of intentional corporate conspiracy, such as the tobacco industries frankly evil(and I do not use this word lightly) intentional and extended efforts to cover up the harmful effects of tobacco smoke, the harmful effects of second hand tobacco smoke and the addictive nature of nicotine. The heads of said tobacco companies (along with a small cartel of scientists who implemented the tobacco industries campaign of misinformation) did vastly more real damage to many more real humans than your hypothetical DEA man would have been able to do with said cocaine. They have used wealth and corporate power to ensure that they have not been imprisoned, despite knowingly selling a highly dangerous and addictive substance, for more than sixty year.
If you want to see said DEA man die in prison, why is it you are not calling for these business men die that same death."
I'm curious if you're just being contrary, or did you really miss my point? I realize my writing isn't great, but I though my position was pretty clear.
I don't care if the head of the DEA in my hypothetical is going to sell the drugs or not. My point is the obscene double standard.
I think it's well established that I oppose the prohibition of all drugs. I've known quite a few drug users, and I've seen some tragic outcomes, but in my experience interaction with the war on drugs has caused more harm than the drug use.
As for the comparison to the tobacco companies, I don't think this is a great comparison. If the companies committed fraud then they should face the consequences for it. I'm perfectly happy to see Madof die in prison for instance, and it boggles the mind that there haven't been any serious prosecutions related to the banking collapse.
I have trouble with the tobacco analogy as well because it has been common knowledge that smoking is harmful for about half a century. I can see how someone who started smoking in the service during the early forties has a perfectly valid complaint, but I can't imagine how anyone who has started in the past 30 years or so can honestly say they didn't know it was addictive and harmful.
I do think government abuse of power is worse than corporate abuse of power particularly in a republic like the US. I think it's especially odious that the corrupt maggots that make and enforce the laws seem to be the most likely to get away with breaking those same laws rather than the other way around. It only seems reasonable to me that they should be held to an even higher standard. I think the situation is made even more repugnant by the coercive nature of governments. I can almost always chose not to do business with a company or even an industry. It is far more difficult to move to another state or change nationalities in most cases.
I continue to reject the assumption that a society with fewer government restrictions on freedom will turn into a corporate slave state. Quite the opposite, I find our current system of massive, invasive and corrupt government does a tremendous amount to empower the corporate corruption we both oppose.
Does that help clarify my position? I think you may be engaging in some good-natured contrarianism. It's hard to tell in text.
A different opinion on the apparent triumph of Republican financial strategies in Texas.
I will note that I take it with a large grain of salt: I have a job in Texas, and no jobs waithing for me in NY!
|
|
A different opinion on the apparent triumph of Republican financial strategies in Texas.
I will note that I take it with a large grain of salt: I have a job in Texas, and no jobs waithing for me in NY!
I was interested in how he rated Texas education low because of low levels of funding. I did a google search on school performance and picked the first link I found that looked like it had listings of performance across all states: http://www.edweek.org/media/ew/qc/2010/QualityCounts2010_PressRelease.pdf And found that the highest grade was a B+, Texas had a C+, and the US overall had a C. So, evidently the overall performance of the Texas educational system is slightly above average (admittedly that's not stellar, given what I've seen in general on our educational state) with significantly below average funding...
That actually sounds like a win to me.