11 Jan 09
Originally posted by normbenignyeah, cuba was a sad but true example.
Fidel Castro was one, arising out of a planned anarchy. He replaced a not so benevolent dictator.
Of course, Castro's benevolence never was to the Cubans whose property and businesses were taken. And it turns out that although Cubans get free health care, when Fidel needed treatment he sought a doctor outside of his own system.
Benevolence doesn't ...[text shortened]... to rickety boats and attempt to cross 90 miles of treacherous ocean to leave that benevolence.
12 Jan 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIndividual rights? Health care, and education? How about Food, Clothing and Shelter? How about a computer and internet access, transportation?
[b]The trick is to limit government to the bare minimum which is necessary to protect individual rights
I agree. But how do you determine the "bare minimum needed to protect individual rights"? I'd say everyone has a right to health care and education, for example.
At the other end of the spectrum, democracy, or an excess of government rule ...[text shortened]... (or oligarchy, whatever) the ruling few have an interest in binding people to the system.
Are the necessities of life also "rights" or is it our right to freely pursue those necessities, without force or fraud from others or from government?
Collectivism was around before Karl Marx laid it out on paper. The Mayflower compact was a collectivist agreement, and the lack of initiative during the first growing season almost let the Plymouth colony starve. The governor dropped the compact and assigned private property land rights to the colonists and production exceeded demand.
Incentives are important economic factors. Without the incentive of personal improvement, most people will do the minimum required to get by. As a Russian comedian once said, "They pretended to pay us, and we pretended to work." The same lack of incentives is why Union shops are so notoriously inefficient. The incentive is to do the minimum required. A worker who is more productive become a pariah. Drop a part on the floor, and don't you dare pick it up. Call the pick up man, that's his job.
Health Care, and education are commodities both probably less essential than food, water and shelter, which are also commodities. There isn't any set level of any commodity which can be set as a standard. We can and do attempt to see that people don't die of starvation, thirst or exposure, or a lack of health care, but it is their right to provide for themselves as much as they can in the final analysis, and with the right comes a responsibility to do so.
12 Jan 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI did not mean to link democracy, or an excess of government rules. Either can lead to anarchy, and then to oligarchy.
[b]The trick is to limit government to the bare minimum which is necessary to protect individual rights
I agree. But how do you determine the "bare minimum needed to protect individual rights"? I'd say everyone has a right to health care and education, for example.
At the other end of the spectrum, democracy, or an excess of government rule ...[text shortened]... (or oligarchy, whatever) the ruling few have an interest in binding people to the system.
Democracy, in the US, under the new understanding of the general welfare clause, has led to an exploding national debt, 10.6 Trillion. People vote for benefits promised by politicians who say that someone else will pay for them. The US Federal budget is roughly a third on defense, a third on entitlements, and twenty percent on debt service, leaving only about 15% discretionary, and Congress has no problem exceeding that every time. The outgoing administration has been the worst since the Carter administration in this regard, attempting to be all things to everyone. Absolutely no limitations on spending, including the latest travesties, bailing out the banks, insurance companies, and auto manufacturers.
We have sandal after scandal in the banking and securities market which are nearly the most heavily regulated in the nation. People then wonder, if all that regulation is accomplishing anything but empowering those already having all the power, and manipulating the ripoff of the common worker. This is the fuel of revolutions, and anarchy, which is most often filled by an oligarchy, usually led by a tyrant.
15 Jan 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSo many chess players and so few able to apply the same kind of analysis to life ... You have to see the entire board, not just the two pieces in direct confrontation. You have to see what comes next, what would happen if you did one thing or another. Using that sort of analysis, one sees that behind each side along the same diagonal or file is another, more powerful piece providing cover.
I don't think democracy and "excess of rules" are related. Dictatorships often tend to have huge amounts of bureaucracy. If anything, they are inversely related; in a democracy there is an electoral reason for government to cut back on bureaucracy (I can tell you it's a relevant topic in political debate here) - in a dictatorship (or oligarchy, whatever) the ruling few have an interest in binding people to the system.
15 Jan 09
Originally posted by normbenignWait a second. Are you implying the credit crisis is due to an excess of regulation?
I did not mean to link democracy, or an excess of government rules. Either can lead to anarchy, and then to oligarchy.
Democracy, in the US, under the new understanding of the general welfare clause, has led to an exploding national debt, 10.6 Trillion. People vote for benefits promised by politicians who say that someone else will pay for them. The ...[text shortened]... f revolutions, and anarchy, which is most often filled by an oligarchy, usually led by a tyrant.
In any case, I agree that the budget policy of the US is poor. I wonder if democracy is to blame, after all there isn't much to choose in terms of national policy in the US.
15 Jan 09
Democracy is the art of running the circus from the monkey cage.
Thus, democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.
Democracy forever teases us with the contrast between its ideals and its realities, between its heroic possibilities and its sorry achievements.
A democracy which makes or even effectively prepares for modern, scientific war must necessarily cease to be democratic. No country can be really well prepared for modern war unless it is governed by a tyrant, at the head of a highly trained and perfectly obedient bureaucracy.
The 20th century was characterized by the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.
The surface of American society is covered with a layer of democratic paint, but from time to time one can see the old aristocratic colors breaking through.
A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won't cross the street to vote in a national election.
The two greatest obstacles to democracy in the United States are, first, the widespread delusion among the poor that we have a democracy, and second, the chronic terror among the rich, lest we get it.
15 Jan 09
Originally posted by FMFStop that now ...
So many chess players and so few able to apply the same kind of analysis to life ... You have to see the entire board, not just the two pieces in direct confrontation. You have to see what comes next, what would happen if you did one thing or another. Using that sort of analysis, one sees that behind each side along the same diagonal or file is another, more powerful piece providing cover.
15 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FMF - 15 Jan '09 03:47I always thought you two to be the same person. One a mover and shaker in the belt way, the other a liberation theology Jesuit doing penance for colonial excess. Question is does it involve time portals or remote computers via vpn?
So many chess players and so few able to apply the same kind of analysis to life ... You have to see the entire board, not just the two pieces in direct confrontation. You have to see what comes next, what would happen if you did one thing or another. Using that sort of analysis, one sees that behind each side along the same diagonal or file is another, more powerful piece providing cover.
Originally posted by Scriabin - 14 Jan '09 16:51
So many chess players and so few able to apply the same kind of analysis to life ...
You have to see the entire board, not just the two pieces in direct confrontation.
You have to see what comes next, what would happen if you did one thing or another.
Using that sort of analysis, one sees that behind each side along the same diagonal or file is another, more powerful piece providing cover.