Typical neocon trick. They paint the government as some kind of bogeyman for enforcing the very laws the people clamored for in hopes of relaxing regulation so they can shaft people. Hook, line, and sinker for you.

Every day in certain states in America, you will hear repeated the message about how "big government" is endangering you. However, the truth is that the government is neither "big" nor "small," it simply is what it is.

What is the United States Government? It's a legislative body created for the people and by the people by the democratic process. It does not impose a threat of socialism or communism. In the United States, it simply is the means in which the people can make their rights known and be heard. It is all of America working together for the greater good of having the basic necessities we need to survive.

Those who have little love for the government are these advantaged individuals who wish to rob us each of the only organization that truly stands up for the individuals, and they've been savage in their propaganda to instill this anti-government message.

If the government were truly gone or so minimalist as to be inconsequential, you are corporate America's helpless bitch, you work for them under whatever conditions they demand of you, and that's just how they want it.

Jeff8500 wrote:

I beg to differ with the socialist thing, considering the policies Obama is pushing :P.

That's mostly the neocon's line. The only thing Obama's had to do is business as usual following a recession. For example, when banks fail, the government buys them out, it's how it's been for decades.

The health care thing is just a major overdue change that many other 1st-world countries have already done. The U.S. spends a ridiculously large amount of our GDP on health care, and we don't get as much benefits as those who pay a lot less. The HMOs don't want us to reform because the way things are currently working is a while lot more profitable. Apparently, they feel strongly enough about it to flat out spread misinformation about it.

Sorry, it's not really trendy for most intelligent people to be on the right lately. We left a thoroughly right-president in the oval office for 8 years, and in the process he severely bankrupt the country while ruining foreign relations. The majority of their presidential campaign was spent simply demonizing the other guy - it backfired, as it should. Still showing the same colors, their latest resistance to health reform has been done in the most underhanded ways possible.

Consequently, it's become abundantly clear that the current representatives of the right are thoroughly corrupt. They largely rule by inventing something to be scared of and getting people to turn their backs while they pick their pocket. The fact they would make our very government and its president one of their bogeymen shows that they're pretty much openly invoking high treason. Why? Because they're paid to do it. It's sort of hard to look on the party with anything but contempt right now.

How can you not view the leftist with any measure of contempt when all they want to do is tell us which video games we can play, what radio stations we can listen to, and what things we can consume?

This is one of those trumpeted horrors you mentioned.

I have a mind to tell both sides where to get off. I'd rather be disagreeable with everyone, than overly agreeable with just anyone.

Don't think I wouldn't hop the fence in a second if the Democrat party became every bit as corrupt. This is what living in a Democratic Republic is about: we don't vote out of loyalty, but because it's the right thing to do.

Currently, I can't say that Obama or the Democratic party is doing anything other than challenge the status quo and dig us out of this mess -- and this was what we asked for when we voted for change.

Rockinawsome wrote:
What do I have to love about government?

Trash Collection
Fire Department
Roads
The Internet
Colleges
Sewers

Oh but wait... Rockinawsome litters, puts out his own fires, walks or bikes on trails exclusively, communicates by pigeon, never went to public school, and defecates in a hole in his back yard.

Be realistic. That's wonderful you pride yourself on the criminal side of your geneology, but that's no excuse for a generic and nonspecific hate for government. Find a way to remove the "general welfare" part of Constitution -- I'm sure "your line" will be happy you disemboweled that.

Rockinawsome wrote:

I find it interesting that few leftists will agree or even admit to the evils of any organization or government associated with their side of the political arena. Sure, they can point out the abuse of power when referring Cheney and his Haliburton boys, but they have a harder time talking about unions being reduced to thuggery and extortionists at the voting polls. The truth is, any body of individuals, pooling the same resources in an attempt to further a certain end, and entangling a host of others, has the potential for great good or great evil. To assume that only corporations can be evil, is every bit as naive as assuming that only governments can be evil.

Just because you say it doesn't mean it's true. I'm quite happy to admit that left-wing organisations can do bad stuff.

I also feel it necessary to point out that when a corporation does evil, you have no recourse, other than trying to boycott them - easier said than done in many industries. When a government does evil, you can not vote for them, assuming you're still living in a democracy.

I derive a great sense of dissatisfaction with the notion that more influence should be delivered to a few people who have obtained a certain position or series of positions, that they should be allowed to make petty decisions in everyday life.

Just because the government provides trash collection, the fire department, roads, the internet, collages, and sewers, does this really give them the right to dicate petty personal decisions? At what point do I deny them access? Ever? Should I allow them to dictate my education, my profession, what people I can mingle with, what I can or cannot say, what I can or cannot consume? I think not. I think the government has its place. A small place. But I don't like it even remotely when they increase their sphere of influence into my personal life. There needs to be set boundaries, and the checks for power are ever diminished by those who would choose to ignore these boundaries to fulfill some perverse utilitarian end.

This is either a straw man, or a slippery slope (And I don't see the progression if it's the latter). I'm pretty sure the vast majority of left-wing people don't want government to dictate your education, your profession, what people you can meet with, etc..

Speaking for myself, as a socialist, I think that the government should provide alternatives to the private sector in education and healthcare - I do think that there should be private sector healthcare and education, as well. That doesn't mean I think that the government should be able to prevent you mingling with random person x.

To be honest, in a modern democracy, I can't see major corruption leading to dictatorial stuff. When I see laws enforced that try to, for example, curtail free speech, they're done in an attempt to be populist - say, the sedition laws that were passed in Australia after September 11 (By a right-wing government, actually). They weren't passed because the government was trying to prevent criticism of itself, they were passed so the Howard government could go "Hey, we're tough on terrorism! Vote for us!"

Rockinawsome wrote:
I find it interesting that few leftists will agree or even admit to the evils of any organization or government associated with their side of the political arena.

Why is this interesting at all? There are very few "leftists" that fit your description.

Your nuggets of "interest" derive, so far, from out of context quotes, a venture capitalist blaming government for Silicon Valley's woes, and glibly and incorrectly applied overgeneralizations.

Sure, they can point out the abuse of power when referring Cheney and his Haliburton boys, but they have a harder time talking about unions being reduced to thuggery and extortionists at the voting polls.

You fail on two respects:
1) Argument by false equivalency. Elected executive officials versus thugs in unions. Doesn't wash here.
2) Argument with by conjecture. Extortionists at voting polls. Extortion is non-partisan.

Please provide reference to the "they" you are referring to.

The truth is, any body of individuals, pooling the same resources in an attempt to further a certain end, and entangling a host of others, has the potential for great good or great evil. To assume that only corporations can be evil, is every bit as naive as assuming that only governments can be evil.


This should have been your only response.

I derive a great sense of dissatisfaction with the notion that more influence should be delivered to a few people who have obtained a certain position or series of positions, that they should be allowed to make petty decisions in everyday life.

Care to restate?

You are talking about the basic mechanisms of the US government from the local to the federal level. These mechanisms have had its roots as far back as the 13th century as a countermeasure to the tyranny of kings and emperors.

If the barons and land owners of old England had shared your dissatisfaction, there would be no modern common law, or perhaps be 200 or so years behind -- and it could have easily been replaced by either a dictatorship or anarchy.

Just because the government provides trash collection, the fire department, roads, the internet, collages, and sewers, does this really give them the right to dicate petty personal decisions?

Since you believe that the fire department, trash collection, roads, the internet, colleges, and sewers are petty, it would be safe to assume that your beliefs would lead to lecherous behavior. Try living in Sudan or Sierra Leone, buy yourself a gun, dig a hole to take a crap in, drink from malaria infected mosquito ridden waters, and consider again about what you have to be thankful for under the words of the US Constitution.

At what point do I deny them access? Ever?

You are bound by the rule of law. You can deny them access, and you have rights as a US citizen, but it is likely you will be jailed. And since this is an unwavering belief of yours, there are three strikes laws in many states and you could probably accumuluate nine misdemeanors before yours put away for the rest of your life. Good luck with that.

Should I allow them to dictate my education

You are likely product of public education.

my profession

Yes, if you work for or are contracted by a government agency.

what people I can mingle with

Yes. The US State department has the right to restrict access to countries.

what I can or cannot say

Yes, you can be fined and jailed for public obscenities and speech related to disturbing the public peace.

what I can or cannot consume?

Yes. You are a scum if you believe you can consume alcohol while behind the wheel of a car.

I think not.

Agreed. You haven't demonstrated the ability to think clearly on your original topic.

I think the government has its place. A small place. But I don't like it even remotely when they increase their sphere of influence into my personal life. There needs to be set boundaries, and the checks for power are ever diminished by those who would choose to ignore these boundaries to fulfill some perverse utilitarian end.

After all that, I agree with your statement here, but for very different reasons. You apparently align much closer to anarchy which is absolutely reprehensible. We are a nation of laws, bound by our US constitution. We have three branches of government to enforce, legislate and execute. The line, "government should be small" is correct for one simple reason -- we can't afford it not to be.