Ideally, yes. In practice, you just have to be good at bullshitting or diverting blame.Ticia wrote:
No. You have to change your values and rules and be open to the public so they can know who the fuck they're voting for.
A cynic is someone who knows things are wrong but accepts them. A gullible person doesn't realize things are wrong and therefore has no reason to be concerned in the first place.Ticia wrote:
I don't see much difference between cynics and gullible here.
Or, at the very least, it makes an area dependent on a company.JohnG@lt wrote:
And people are retarded. It's been shown that 'pork barrel spending' does more to destroy local jobs than create them.Turquoise wrote:
Have you ever considered that it's easier to condemn a collective than a local representative that brings home the bacon to your district?JohnG@lt wrote:
Perhaps, but it's much easier to kick the bastards out when it's discovered. One person can turn the tide against voter apathy in a small election. The same can't be done at a larger level. This is why short of a tea party movement, incumbents have 95% reelection rates at the national level, even though their collective approval rating sits at 18%.
That's mostly what those ratings mean. Everyone says they hate pork, but most people still vote in favor of pork for their own areas.
Well, I agree with you. Some people just take it too far, to the point that they think all taxation is evil etc.Kmar wrote:
I can count on one hand what I need the federal government to do for me. Individual soverignty is not about anarchy.. it is about having authority over yourself.JohnG@lt wrote:
Individual sovereignty is great, but you can't go full anarchist. There will always be common issues that we need some form of government to deal with. Like, I wouldn't want to live in the Wild West where the quickest draw is the arbiter of justice. Government has its place, it should just perform many less jobs than it currently tries to handle.Kmar wrote:
Personally. I like the thought of individual soverignty.
..and how the he'll can someone expect transparency when you have a cia watching a tsa watching an fbi? The thought is laughable at best.
Still, it is a reflection of the people in all ways. People elect politicians expecting them to handle problems that they don't want to deal with themselves. The bigger the government, the lazier the populace becomes even though they could do the job themselves a million times better and more efficiently. The size of government reflects the laziness of the population, nothing more.
Same outcome.Turquoise wrote:
Ideally, yes. In practice, you just have to be good at bullshitting or diverting blame.Ticia wrote:
No. You have to change your values and rules and be open to the public so they can know who the fuck they're voting for.A cynic is someone who knows things are wrong but accepts them. A gullible person doesn't realize things are wrong and therefore has no reason to be concerned in the first place.Ticia wrote:
I don't see much difference between cynics and gullible here.
Self-reliance is a nice idea, but it's hard to truly practice unless you live in the middle of a place like Montana.Kmar wrote:
I can count on one hand what I need the federal government to do for me. Individual soverignty is not about anarchy.. it is about having authority over yourself.JohnG@lt wrote:
Individual sovereignty is great, but you can't go full anarchist. There will always be common issues that we need some form of government to deal with. Like, I wouldn't want to live in the Wild West where the quickest draw is the arbiter of justice. Government has its place, it should just perform many less jobs than it currently tries to handle.Kmar wrote:
Personally. I like the thought of individual soverignty.
..and how the he'll can someone expect transparency when you have a cia watching a tsa watching an fbi? The thought is laughable at best.
Still, it is a reflection of the people in all ways. People elect politicians expecting them to handle problems that they don't want to deal with themselves. The bigger the government, the lazier the populace becomes even though they could do the job themselves a million times better and more efficiently. The size of government reflects the laziness of the population, nothing more.
Pretty much. In some ways, the gullible person is enviable.Ticia wrote:
Same outcome.Turquoise wrote:
Ideally, yes. In practice, you just have to be good at bullshitting or diverting blame.Ticia wrote:
No. You have to change your values and rules and be open to the public so they can know who the fuck they're voting for.A cynic is someone who knows things are wrong but accepts them. A gullible person doesn't realize things are wrong and therefore has no reason to be concerned in the first place.Ticia wrote:
I don't see much difference between cynics and gullible here.
Self reliance doesn't mean living in the sticks and growing/hunting your own food. It means taking care of your shit without relying on handouts. It means going to work every day, planning for your own health care needs, your own retirement, without expecting someone else to do it for you. I doubt very much he's talking about economically isolating himself from the rest of the world, simply having the wherewithal to know what he needs and taking care of it. If he wants a slice of pizza, he works at his job, and spends his own money on the slice of pizza. It's about having the freedom to make your own choices because you damn well know what's best for you better than some suit in an office.Turquoise wrote:
Self-reliance is a nice idea, but it's hard to truly practice unless you live in the middle of a place like Montana.Kmar wrote:
I can count on one hand what I need the federal government to do for me. Individual soverignty is not about anarchy.. it is about having authority over yourself.JohnG@lt wrote:
Individual sovereignty is great, but you can't go full anarchist. There will always be common issues that we need some form of government to deal with. Like, I wouldn't want to live in the Wild West where the quickest draw is the arbiter of justice. Government has its place, it should just perform many less jobs than it currently tries to handle.
Still, it is a reflection of the people in all ways. People elect politicians expecting them to handle problems that they don't want to deal with themselves. The bigger the government, the lazier the populace becomes even though they could do the job themselves a million times better and more efficiently. The size of government reflects the laziness of the population, nothing more.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-12-09 08:47:11)
I don't assume. I think its more likely. The logical conclusion is that if the pain of corruption is felt immediatly then it has less of a chance of developing. If you fart in a room with 300 people in it, chances of getting called out are unlikely.Turquoise wrote:
You're assuming that locals would fight the corruption. Some cases of corruption have a net benefit for the local population.Kmar wrote:
Disagree. The impacts of corruption are direct and easily deciphered locally. The bigger the government gets the longer the trail is. Why should floridians vote on funding public schools in montana? It make zero sense. .. and don't even get me started on about how easy it is to buyoff washington politicians... for it is they who have to fund massive political campaigns.Turquoise wrote:
Local politicians are easier to buy off. It's not a matter of less corruption or more, it's a matter of scale. You can pull off bigger scams on the federal level because of the money and power involved. However, this is less a measure of character and more a measure of capacity.
Manipulating a local government is easier than manipulating the federal government as a whole.
For example, the mob had a lot of support (and still somewhat does) up north because organized crime was easier to deal with than a bunch of smaller gangs continually fighting in turf wars. People were willing to pay protection money if it meant things went smoother on a day to day basis.
We see similar things throughout the world. A lot of Afghani tribes are willing to negotiate with the Taliban if it means less conflict and death.
In America, things are obviously less extreme, but the principle is the same. Local governments are no less corrupt than the feds, they just operate differently. Local politicians are the sort of people you have a much better chance of making a personal connection with, so people are more forgiving of certain character flaws if they know someone on a first name basis or if they know that this person is willing to make the right tax breaks that might bring a company into their area to provide them a decent job. If the politician gets a kickback in the process, who are they to complain?
My argument is that neither the feds nor the locals will save you. Your bit about self-reliance is actually not that far from what I'm thinking of.Kmar wrote:
If you think that washington is going to save you from the mob you're dreaming. Some of those politicians fit the very definition if organized crime.
Yet you wish to grant it more power over your life at every turn.Turquoise wrote:
My argument is that neither the feds nor the locals will save you. Your bit about self-reliance is actually not that far from what I'm thinking of.Kmar wrote:
If you think that washington is going to save you from the mob you're dreaming. Some of those politicians fit the very definition if organized crime.
In the end, if you want something done, you have to do it yourself. All I'm saying is that I distrust government in general and the only things I trust it with are a matter of convenience.
There ya go. It's a policy of opting in .. as opposed to being placed in a group by default.JohnG@lt wrote:
Self reliance doesn't mean living in the sticks and growing/hunting your own food. It means taking care of your shit without relying on handouts. It means going to work every day, planning for your own health care needs, your own retirement, without expecting someone else to do it for you. I doubt very much he's talking about economically isolating himself from the rest of the world, simply having the wherewithal to know what he needs and taking care of it. If he wants a slice of pizza, he works at his job, and spends his own money on the slice of pizza. It's about having the freedom to make your own choices because you damn well know what's best for you better than some suit in an office.Turquoise wrote:
Self-reliance is a nice idea, but it's hard to truly practice unless you live in the middle of a place like Montana.Kmar wrote:
I can count on one hand what I need the federal government to do for me. Individual soverignty is not about anarchy.. it is about having authority over yourself.
The only gaurentee you have with a Washington politician turq is a loss of connection. That is a major difference.Turquoise wrote:
My argument is that neither the feds nor the locals will save you. Your bit about self-reliance is actually not that far from what I'm thinking of.Kmar wrote:
If you think that washington is going to save you from the mob you're dreaming. Some of those politicians fit the very definition if organized crime.
In the end, if you want something done, you have to do it yourself. All I'm saying is that I distrust government in general and the only things I trust it with are a matter of convenience.
No, I just wish to have it there to keep it in conflict with certain industries. Our population could stand to be a little more wary of big business. Maybe a few more strikes per year might keep things interesting.JohnG@lt wrote:
Yet you wish to grant it more power over your life at every turn.Turquoise wrote:
My argument is that neither the feds nor the locals will save you. Your bit about self-reliance is actually not that far from what I'm thinking of.Kmar wrote:
If you think that washington is going to save you from the mob you're dreaming. Some of those politicians fit the very definition if organized crime.
In the end, if you want something done, you have to do it yourself. All I'm saying is that I distrust government in general and the only things I trust it with are a matter of convenience.
There's certainly a disconnect. I've often wondered why we've chosen to remain one country to be honest. I really have little to no faith left in this tenuous balance between states and the feds. I figure it's a "shit or get off the pot" situation.Kmar wrote:
The only gaurentee you have with a Washington politician turq is a loss of connection. That is a major difference.Turquoise wrote:
My argument is that neither the feds nor the locals will save you. Your bit about self-reliance is actually not that far from what I'm thinking of.Kmar wrote:
If you think that washington is going to save you from the mob you're dreaming. Some of those politicians fit the very definition if organized crime.
In the end, if you want something done, you have to do it yourself. All I'm saying is that I distrust government in general and the only things I trust it with are a matter of convenience.
So don't have kids if you're living on minimum wage. And yes, everyone that ends up in the gutter does so because of poor choices they have made. There's no such thing as luck.dayarath wrote:
Well at some point there has to be government interference right?
How much does treatment cost if you get diagnosed with an agressive tumor or cancer? I don't think someone with a minimum wage job will have an easy time dealing with that.
Or a mom with kids <10 years old who's husband leaves without paying child support or not having the money to do so, what then?
Self reliance is a great idea but not EVERYONE ends up in the gutter because they made bad decisions.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-12-09 09:04:57)
There's alot of people who live on minimum wage for their entire lives, some people were just born stupid.JohnG@lt wrote:
So don't have kids if you're living on minimum wage. And yes, everyone that ends up in the gutter does so because of poor choices they have made. There's no such thing as luck.
...of course...JohnG@lt wrote:
And yes, everyone that ends up in the gutter does so because of poor choices they have made. There's no such thing as luck.
Winner, winner, chicken dinner.dayarath wrote:
There's alot of people who live on minimum wage for their entire lives, some people were just born stupid.JohnG@lt wrote:
So don't have kids if you're living on minimum wage. And yes, everyone that ends up in the gutter does so because of poor choices they have made. There's no such thing as luck.
Perhaps here's the difference inbetween euro and US mentality but it's accepted here that society's weakest ought to have some support.
If evolution is right though that's a process of slow self destruction .
Let's just hope genetic manipulation arrives before that happens.JohnG@lt wrote:
Winner, winner, chicken dinner.
Please give me a logical explanation for why we should prop up those that continuously made poor choices in their life which led them to the bottom of the social ladder. Logic implies removing any emotional context.Turquoise wrote:
Well, if it's Social Darwinism you want... Most of the world already offers that.
To keep the peasants from getting restless.... If you want to see what living in a society with no social safety net is like, you can visit any given Third World country. Kidnappings for ransom and murder are rather high in those environments.JohnG@lt wrote:
Please give me a logical explanation for why we should prop up those that continuously made poor choices in their life which led them to the bottom of the social ladder. Logic implies removing any emotional context.Turquoise wrote:
Well, if it's Social Darwinism you want... Most of the world already offers that.