|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2016 16:52:02 GMT -5
Anarchocommunism, at least, does not "ignore that those deficits (of human nature) exist." The belief is that the eradication of capitalism, government & assorted coercive apparatuses (apparati?) will relieve the pressures that cause people to act selfishly. No doubt that's naive & overly optimistic, but a failure of trust in the essential goodness of human nature is a failure I can sympathize with, at the very least.
I would say that while the success of "trickle down" would indeed require "the rich (not be) be greedy and just keep the money," its proponents damned well knew better & weren't even remotely surprised when it didn't happen.
That "greed is good" quote & ethos from the movie Wall Street in 1987 didn't just arise out of a vacuum, after all.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Aug 9, 2016 17:01:55 GMT -5
And ... uh ... "Christianity." Which of course when applied per the New Testament includes elements of communism. Or rather is supposed to. There is some truth to that. However, ideally the focus of Christianity (and other religions) is on admitting the deficits of human nature and to try to improve on them. The other examples just ignore that those deficits exist and pretend that the plans will still work anyways.
In the case of "trickle down", they assume the rich won't be greedy and just keep the money, but will selflessly reinvest to improve the lot of the common man. Which obviously didn't happen.
The negative side to religion's recognition of human frailty is that it often encourages an acceptance of the political and socio-economic evils of this world, placing all hope of a better lot in the afterlife.
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Aug 9, 2016 17:02:15 GMT -5
Liberalism works under the pretense that big government is kindly, friendly, better and more efficient than individualism. But government is made up of greedy, power hungry corrupt individuals. The bigger the government, the quicker individuals loose their rights
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Aug 9, 2016 17:52:17 GMT -5
As anyone would realize if they had been paying attention during the Reagan years. Plus, trickling is good for building character among the working class. It was sadly amusing how this entire theory of "trickle down economics" so completely ignored all the facts of human nature. Much like "communism". Zing!!! I wish Ronald Reagan could see that.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Aug 9, 2016 20:16:41 GMT -5
Liberalism works under the pretense that big government is kindly, friendly, better and more efficient than individualism. But government is made up of greedy, power hungry corrupt individuals. The bigger the government, the quicker individuals loose their rights No, that human nature, left to its own devices, is far more dangerous and destructive than any bureaucracy could ver be. better a little disorganization than rampant violence, racism, and capitalism. "Big' government's power, as opposed to, say, a totalitarian government's, is a cinch to circumvent. "Kindly" has nothing to do with it; that's PR and window dresssing. The world is full of a$$holes (in our country, well armed, racist, violent assholes) that the rest of us nee dot at least be able to keep at bay.
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Aug 9, 2016 20:42:02 GMT -5
Liberalism works under the pretense that big government is kindly, friendly, better and more efficient than individualism. But government is made up of greedy, power hungry corrupt individuals. The bigger the government, the quicker individuals loose their rights No, that human nature, left to its own devices, is far more dangerous and destructive than any bureaucracy could ver be. better a little disorganization than rampant violence, racism, and capitalism. "Big' government's power, as opposed to, say, a totalitarian government's, is a cinch to circumvent. "Kindly" has nothing to do with it; that's PR and window dresssing. The world is full of a$$holes (in our country, well armed, racist, violent assholes) that the rest of us nee dot at least be able to keep at bay. We'll probably disagree on this Hal, for I see "big" government will have a natural inclination to grow, that's due to the individuals in charge wishing to control and expand power. its the natural order of things to grow. And big government, as it grows, veers into a totalitarian state. I need not do more than point to experiments such as the USSR or China The nanny government is the same. Laws are passed to protect people from themselves or in the name of protecting children. Take mandatory seatbelt laws or headgear laws for riding motorbikes. Easy to make a persuasive argument why its beneficial but one does lose the right to make his/her own decision. But then its taken steps forward. Again, natural inclination to expand power For instance, they tried to pass a law in NYC banning the serving of soda above 24oz. Or banning the right to smoke a cigarette in your own apartment. All dione in the name of a kindly government that has to protect you from yourself or for the sake of the children. At least that's there justification And this kindly government has the police on their side, the courts, fines and penalties, bureaucratic red tape and many other methods to enforce their edicts. I think of them as a$$holes as well
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Aug 9, 2016 21:00:15 GMT -5
No, that human nature, left to its own devices, is far more dangerous and destructive than any bureaucracy could ver be. better a little disorganization than rampant violence, racism, and capitalism. "Big' government's power, as opposed to, say, a totalitarian government's, is a cinch to circumvent. "Kindly" has nothing to do with it; that's PR and window dresssing. The world is full of a$$holes (in our country, well armed, racist, violent assholes) that the rest of us nee dot at least be able to keep at bay. We'll probably disagree on this Hal, for I see "big" government will have a natural inclination to grow, that's due to the individuals in charge wishing to control and expand power. its the natural order of things to grow. And big government, as it grows, veers into a totalitarian state. I need not do more than point to experiments such as the USSR or China The nanny government is the same. Laws are passed to protect people from themselves or in the name of protecting children. Take mandatory seatbelt laws or headgear laws for riding motorbikes. Easy to make a persuasive argument why its beneficial but one does lose the right to make his/her own decision. But then its taken steps forward. Again, natural inclination to expand power For instance, they tried to pass a law in NYC banning the serving of soda above 24oz. Or banning the right to smoke a cigarette in your own apartment. All dione in the name of a kindly government that has to protect you from yourself or for the sake of the children. At least that's there justification And this kindly government has the police on their side, the courts, fines and penalties, bureaucratic red tape and many other methods to enforce their edicts. I think of them as a$$holes as well It's true, any system tend to grow and replicate itself. Create an office responsible for finding problems with our schools, for example, and once all the problems have been identified and solved it will create new problems out of thin air to justify its existence. That's why a good goverment should acknowledge that tendecy and take measures to prevent them. Otherwise we'll be faced with a perennial cycle of government growth and shrinking that will probably not provide the required services when they're needed and may not get rid of the right programs when money is scarce. Public representatives could stand up and insist on removing the many ridiculous rules that curtail freedoms without improving our society. (I agree that safety belts do have an important impact on public safety; not so the mandatory whistle that every kayakist must have on their person). That will however demand political courage because candidates will face many well-meaning citizens who "think of the children" when insisting on toddlers wearing helmets when they learn to walk, as well as cities who have already budgeted the money they expect to make by fining people who chew gum in public. (Not to mention the private sector who can now justify adding thousands of bucks to the pricetag of a car because it has fourteen airbags).
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Aug 9, 2016 21:29:45 GMT -5
Mike Pence was in town tonight. One of the more fun protests I've been to.
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Aug 9, 2016 22:04:09 GMT -5
Totalitarian governments can be thought as switch-hitters, they come from both sides of the plate, the right and the left
There are so many things about our governmental system that irks me to no end. For instance, a problem needs to be resolved and a office bureau is set up to tackle it with an annual budget for its needs. Maybe it will do so or maybe it will fail but one of it's prime objectives is for the bureau to continue to justify it's existence. It will never come in under-budget. It will always lobby for increased funding and will find reasons for that request. I recently read a very informative book on FDR's "New Deal" programs to tackle the great depression of the 1930s. Programs were established to help farmers with subsidies, supposedly a temporary program to help the little guy. These programs and subsidies continue to this day, propping up giant corporations and multi-millionaire farm landlords
Toll bridges were authorized to help fund the cost of construction for that specific bridge. Take the George Washington Bridge as an example. Completed in 1931 at a cost of $75,000,000. Original toll-50 cents
85 years later, the toll, of course, still exists.It's now. hold on to your hats, $15. At least they only charge that upon entering Manhattan. You can leave for free. Ten years ago, it was reported the bridge collects $1,000,000 per day. The government will never end their cash cow.
Hell, federal income tax withholding was created to be a temporary WWI money generator.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Aug 10, 2016 0:41:22 GMT -5
I agree with RR's and Ish's comments about how organisations f any kind, governmental or otherwise (private businesses, even charities or supposedly non-profit NGOs, etc) will inevitably seek to expand and therefore secure ever growing revenues, but for me, a lot of this governmental abuse is just a manifestation of the larger problem that while human activity creates a certain amount of wealth, the vast majority of that wealth is captured by a small minority of the population. IOW, if this wealth were used in a rational way, government wouldn't need to be so desperate for cash that it would charge $15 toll on the GW Bridge. Yes, I concede that they might still keep on charging something for the reasons already explained, but I don't think it would be as much - and I think there would be a better chance of getting rid of it altogether or getting it down to maintenance costs plus administration (ooh, watch out, though, that's where they get ya!) depending on the system in place.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Aug 10, 2016 7:30:01 GMT -5
I agree with RR's and Ish's comments about how organisations f any kind, governmental or otherwise (private businesses, even charities or supposedly non-profit NGOs, etc) will inevitably seek to expand and therefore secure ever growing revenues, but for me, a lot of this governmental abuse is just a manifestation of the larger problem that while human activity creates a certain amount of wealth, the vast majority of that wealth is captured by a small minority of the population. IOW, if this wealth were used in a rational way, government wouldn't need to be so desperate for cash that it would charge $15 toll on the GW Bridge. Yes, I concede that they might still keep on charging something for the reasons already explained, but I don't think it would be as much - and I think there would be a better chance of getting rid of it altogether or getting it down to maintenance costs plus administration (ooh, watch out, though, that's where they get ya!) depending on the system in place. One thing that really angered me the few times I worked for the government was how you're supposed to blow your budget. If you manage to do the job for less money, you are actually penalized the next year, because it is assumed that you were overfunded the first time around. This type of mentality naturally triggers an ever-growing cycle of funding inflation and inter-agency competition. I doubt that a better redistribution of wealth would truly reduce human greed; however, it would probably dramatically reduce the primal fear of becoming destitute, and perhaps lighten the struggle to always get more than the neighbour. If this is achieved in a truly democratic society, we can get a Denmark or a Sweden instead of a USSR.
|
|
|
Post by dupersuper on Aug 10, 2016 21:31:17 GMT -5
blame the media for the public's dismal perception of the screaming narcissistic man-baby. Well, they do keep pointing cameras at him and playing what he said on TV. That doesn't do him any favors...
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Aug 10, 2016 22:27:00 GMT -5
blame the media for the public's dismal perception of the screaming narcissistic man-baby. Well, they do keep pointing cameras at him and playing what he said on TV. That doesn't do him any favors... When he got mad at the Khans because the dad said he didn't know the Constitution, Trump could have - I dunno - said something that indicated that he has any idea of something in the Constitution? Instead, he attacked their religion and made sinister insinuations about Mrs. Khan's silence, because he couldn't think of any other reason why a grieving mother might be silent in that situation. To him, the only reason she would be quiet was because IT WAS DEMANDED BY THE MOST HIGH ISLAMIC COUNCIL IN THE HIGHEST TOWER OF THE GREAT MOSQUE IN MECCA! Or something. And also, when he hallucinated those anti-Muslim videos. And also when he hallucinated the investigators he sent to Hawaii to find out THE TROOF about the birth of Barack Obama. Why is the media reporting these things when they're supposed to be repeating all the conservative talking points about all the babies that Hillary has eaten?
|
|
|
Post by Bronze Age Brian on Aug 11, 2016 13:59:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Aug 11, 2016 15:37:10 GMT -5
A comic book is exactly where I expect today's Republicans to get their facts. That and Chuck Norris movies.
|
|