This blog is maintained for the sole purpose of allowing the people of Peru and those interested in the cities of the Illinois Valley to express their views.
“It doesn’t take a majority to win, just a tireless minority that will keep starting brush fires in the mind and hearts of their fellow men.” Samuel Adams
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Might We Consider this Appropriate for Peru at this time?
Absolutely! Everyone should approach government like they would an unfamiliar animal. Government, by its very nature, restricts liberty and our natural rights. The question is: How many restrictions do we allow in the name of the greater good? Everything government does needs to be challenged, no matter how benign it mau sound.
OMG! I can't believe that you actually belive that 11:52! All the problems today are caused by exactly what you are saying! We are civilized people. As such, we turn over certain things to government, which looks out for all of our best interests! Any other way, and people would just freek out - we have liberties, but I mean gosh! These liberties need to be curtailed when the interfere with the good of society in general. And we need government control to decide what is good for society in general and what is good for us! Most people can't be trusted anyway and they should be controled in some form.
9:56 PM So are you a sheep willing to do whatever your government says and actually believe they are looking out for your best interests. I suggest you take a few more history of the world classes and certainly a civics class. Some history of the United States is certainly in order and please think for yourself. I do wonder how old you are?
9:56 loves to play with you nutty libertarians lol.
Government is a necessity for a pluralistic society. It is not an independent floating demon. It is NOT inherently evil. It is built by you, me, our brothers and sisters and manned by them.
Check the personal history of almost every great quotation such as that starting this blog, deep into the psyche and writings of the person. Almost all had parent issues.. Problems with control and authority figures. Often the responsible child who detested the way Mommy or Daddy controlled them. Grow up and realize that there is good and bad in everyone, and good and bad in every decision and every governing group.
Humans do need rules, regulations , and fairness. Most pure libertarians consider themselves responsible and assume everyone is or should be like them. Minimalist government and maximum personal responsibility. They also believe in real pure free markets and Santa Claus. If people were inherently good, no governing is necessary, if they are inherently evil no government will matter, and if they are childish narcissists they think government is inherently restrictive and evil. One of the primary reasons we need laws and governing is right above.. Every idiot thinks their view of the world is exactly the truth.
So Mr. 6:06 - you are saying that anyone that challanges the "Nanny State" aka New Progressive (Democrat / Socialist) agenda is suffering from some sort of mental problem?
No I am saying that any one who sees the world myopically , liberal or democrat or conservative republican or libertarian is generally part of the problem. And if you view the words and quotes of people from the past without knowing their personal history, you are falling into the trap of deifying narcissists and people with problems with authority.
Most libertarians are more fantatic and like religious revolutionaries and not concerned with practical solutions and compromise. Such politicians and leaders in the past were called moderates and diplomats. We have no need of them in our current gun crazed WWF tribal politicians.
But It is more comfortable to surround yourselves with like minded people to make sure your closed mind does not accidentally pop open.
Well 5:03, how do you see the world? Even though you have picked four classes of political parties out of a hat, it is becoming more evident today that people are starting to realize that either government can solve everything, or government can solve nothing.
Since your second paragraph decided to center on libertarians, I'm curious what "practical solutions" you feel they can't come up with, as well as how compromise isn't attainable.
4:54 p.m. then why does government have rules and regulations in every sector of our economy? If it isn't going to solve anything, nor will it solve nothing, then why does it exist?
9:44 By your very statement that government can solve everything or nothing, you prove my point. Always polar extremes. Black and white.
Libertarians are at there core responsible anarchists, believing that rule of law is not essential, regulation is not necessary, and freedom is attained only through personal responsibility.
My choice of political parties was not random and my focus is on the liberal fringe, the conservative far right, the religious, and NRA fanatics , and the libertarians.
All can point at the problems of our bloated government and cry revolution is what is necessary. But progress comes only through moderation and statesmanship. Progress through inclusion and intellect over dogma, by rejecting a plank of radical change and embracing one of true continuous improvement.
I do not think libertarians are bad people, but I use the example of their continued fringe appeal. When 30 people say you are crazy, it does not prove that you are. But it does mean you need to look very hard at yourself, and libertarians spend much more time looking at what is wrong with others than they do in examining there own political view AND it's repeated dysfunction.
I have read and reread every single document ever handed out by their candidates, mostly because they are always very succinct and accurate in describing the problems facing our nation, and always so short on functional solutions. Some people define themselves by walking a different path and following the beat of a different drummer. A rebel without a cause is often just a rebel without a clue.
Government in its simplest function exists to accomplish what we cannot do as individuals or a small group. Presently we are full of our government and yet the problems are continuously increasing. Could the answer be to not increase government and the number of rules and regulations but to simply elect government representation that will enforce the basic existing rules and regulations that we already have.
Regarding tonight's city council meeting on the city's web site, I noticed that expenses for fire trucks is going to be discussed. Why isn't Liberty Fire contributing more private donations to these purchases other then what is mentioned? Wasn't it mentioned that Liberty has several hundred thousands of dollars in its account? Why the need for two new fire trucks? Where is all the money that has been donated to Liberty going over the past many years?
no no no - the purpose of government is to find out how long a shrimp can run on an underwater treadmill any why fat lesbians like the company of other fat lesbians. We simply cannot exist without knowing the answers to these and other questions.
My apologies to any robust women in comfortable shoes out there. But, the polarization we are experiencing today is a direct result of overreaching and bloated government. The problem is that a bureaucratic system will always find a way to perpetuate itself and expand. It will consume its entire budget - then ask for more! The only way to prevent the entire system from going down is to "cull the herd" so to speak. I am willing to bet that EVERY government and EVERY program could be cut by 10% and nobody on the outside would notice. What should be done is simple - cut everything by 20%, then reevaluate. Some programs would revert to the previous funding levels, others would demonstrate that they are not necessary and be subject to more cuts.
One of our biggest problems is the direct election of US Senators. Prior to enacting the 17th amendment, senators where chosen by the State Legislatures, not directly elected by the people. This has made the Senate subject to whims in popular opinion. Because of this, we are stuck with popular idiots such as Nancy Pelosi implementing government policy. If senators where appointed by the legislatures, I doubt we would have Obamma Care, No Child Left Behind, and all the "unfunded" mandates. We cannot let the majority rule in many cases because the majority is often wrong. It think it was Franklin that said the republic is doomed once the electorate figures out they can vote themselves money.
Actually, I was wrong. The study was to figure out why a majority of gay women where obese even though the majority of gay men where not. They spent $2.2 million and I don't think they came to any conclusions.
11:43 I haven't proved any points you have made (have you made any?). You have this uncanny ability to type a lot of words without saying much at all. I haven't seen a single shred of what you would do to solve problems, kind of like the democrats, republicans, and "independents," and if you did, it would most likely be filled with inconsistencies.
According to you, we get "progress through inclusion and intellect over dogma", yet I should "take a hard look at myself" because you and 30 of your cult members say so (are they anonymous, too?). Do you see the contradiction?
Even if they or you did, it wouldn't matter-“If you care about what others think of you, then you will always be their slave.”-James Frey.
You say libertarians are short on "functional solutions." Why? Because the algorithm can't be blue-printed?
You say "libertarians spend much more time looking at what is wrong with others than they do in examining there own political view AND it's repeated dysfunction." That is a completely inaccurate, biased statement. Libertarians find faults in systems, not in people, and attempt to correct them through voluntary exchange. You should research facts before posting drivel such as that.
I debate individuals like you all the time. You sit back and throw random statements to confuse people into thinking you possess some sort of higher wisdom. Tell me, at the corner of every libertarian argument is the push for a free market (yet you don't feel it is a "functional solution" for anything): what exists today that the free market can not provide, both at a cheaper cost, and a higher quality?
Justin, I did not debate you. If you have taken debate class, you would see you debated yourself. You hold a tenet of absolutes that are indefensible and not supported by historical facts.
We must come to the realization that government can solve everything or nothing?
In that statement is the absolute seed of anarchy. It states essentially there is no purpose or use for government . It is purely overhead, useless.
"If you care about what others think of you you will always be there slave. "
Are you serious? Do you even know the history of Frey, his personal influences and upbringing? As you call me out for research...check out your heroes. Look behind the curtain.
An enlightened and thinking man asks continuously for feedback on what others think. Others are your mirrors. Like many young zealots you will carefully avoid any mirror that shows something that is not flattering.
You should care deeply about what others think of you if you expect to lead them. To serve them. If anyone were to run against you again, they need to bring up your opinion of government and that very statement.
As far as you attacks on my opinions as being devoid of solution, again you make an irrelevant statement. My point is that any fringe group, any extremist is the actual useless overhead. You get angry because of the irrelevancy of the party I used as an example.
It apparently cut too close to the bone with you. I assure you if I had chosen to attack the Nader , or Green party, or the socialist democratic agenda, you would loved my words and understood them, praised them as spot on and succinct.
My sole point is that tribalism, dogma, and rigid revoluntionaries share many characteristics with the parties and people they hate. They are becoming less of a nuisance and more of a danger. Example, Tea Party government shut downs.
You want me to give you a well supported, logical well thought out black and white solution to complex problems.
Here it is.
There isn't one.
Go celebrate the next after party for the next Libertarian loss.
If you want to debate, stick to debating facts, not opinion, and try to avoid the personal attacks on "people like me" who I am certain you debate all the time but learn nothing from. After all, we talk a lot and say very little. Very little you agree with anyway. So how can it be of any value.
You will do well in politics Justin. You and Harl have a lot in common. Both stick to your guns.
First off, I don't need to learn about the history of Frey. Understanding his influence and upbringing is irrelevant to the quote. I could care less if Barack Obama or John McCain or Oprah Winfrey said it. It is a good quote, one that is sound in thought, but again, in your opinion, I must "look behind the curtain" and "check out my heroes" (just because I like his quote, it doesn't make him my hero, just another random misguided statement you like to put out there).
You say "any extremist is the actual useless overhead." That's funny. Our Founding Fathers have been labeled as extremists under the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute training guide. Heaven forbid men took a shot at liberty and freedom!
What do we have here? Another random opinion: "I assure you if I had chosen to attack the Nader , or Green party, or the socialist democratic agenda, you would loved my words and understood them, praised them as spot on and succinct." Again, these parties are but systems. If they stand for something I don't agree with, I will be asking questions on how a position makes sense, not verbally bludgeoning them.
"If anyone were to run against you again, they need to bring up your opinion of government." I talk to mostly working class citizens every day, unless you have been living under a rock, or just flat out don't understand mathematics or economics, you would know the picture is rather grim, on all levels of government.
Finally, "If you want to debate, stick to debating facts, not opinion." You should heed by those words as well. All you have thrown at me is one opinion after another (2 our of your last 3 sentences are but opinions).
Even after it is all said and done, you have yet to answer the one question I have put out there that is the cornerstone of any true Libertarians ideals: Why do you resist what a free market has to offer?
9:39. I will say this much, instead of trying to take a biased, assumed approach of what my position is in regards to an issue, the easiest route, and one that will save you tons of keyboard clicks, is to ask.
So 9:39, are you saying that our rights are given to us by government and are subject to change or nullification based on the contemporary needs of society?
"Once upon a time (in the 1800s), "liberal" and "libertarian" meant the same thing; "liberals" were individualist, distrustful of state power, pro-free- market, and opposed to the entrenched privilege of the feudal and mercantilist system. After 1870, the "liberals" were gradually seduced (primarily by the Fabian socialists) into believing that the state could and should be used to guarantee "social justice". They largely forgot about individual freedom, especially economic freedom, and nowadays spend most of their time justifying higher taxes, bigger government, and more regulation. Libertarians call this socialism without the brand label and want no part of it."
"Most libertarians have no interest in returning to an idealized past. More generally, libertarians hold no brief for the right wing's rather overt militarist, racist, sexist, and authoritarian tendencies and reject conservative attempts to "legislate morality" with censorship, drug laws, and obnoxious Bible-thumping. Though libertarians believe in free-enterprise capitalism, we also refuse to stooge for the military-industrial complex as conservatives are wont to do."
9:39 - It sounds as if you would rather roll along with the herd. The majority is not always right - the majority is often wrong and needs to be persuaded. It also sounds as if you view government as an equalizer and it should be used to keep non-intellectuals in check. Keep them dependent so to speak. Reading deeper between the lines, I think you just might believe that electing representatives is sort of like electing a Mom or Dad.... or a "Big Brother." Somebody to tell us everything is OK and we are being taken care of by people that "know better."
I am saying one thing. Irrelevance and extremism does not constitute a platform for change. In general, succesful leaders have worked within the Current government systems to effect practical change. Unfortunately, now the government has polarized and has become bloated and ineffective.
I have read more Libertarian garbage than I care to. Their approach offers as much chance of practical success as any myth. There reliance on the pure Free Market is as realistic as trying out communism or giving it all over to the Pope to run. The pure free market , or capitalism , is a myth. It is illusion in modern developed counties.
It is a driver, to be sure, but it's side effects are littered throughout history. It is a ruthless and effective distributor of limited resources. It is the antithesis of liberal socialism
And both positions are nuts.
There is no debate when individuals do not care what the other person says. You are steeped in a particular view of the world. No one will change it.
I am sick of the rigid and dogmatic and revolutionary approaches, because in my OPINION they are what is tearing this country apart.
You will of course tear this post apart as well, but I can save you and free market tribe the trouble. You are right. The government is evil, in it's entirety and all safety nets and any hint of socialism must be ripped out, by revolution if necessary. Thanks for converting me. Where do I sign up.
Don't worry I will bring my own gun, initiative, capital, and seed money... As well as have the courtesy to die without any government sponsored healthcare or benefits. If I do fail, I will be certain to make sure I am eliminated before I cause any burden to another free responsible citizen. And by my failure I will learn, and others will learn as well. And I will make sure to be home schooled, and maintain a disdain for any institute of higher learning or degree besides economic theory. Thank you all for showing me the future and what should be.
7:41. I only tear your posts apart when I feel a dose of logic and reason needs to be applied, and since this relates more to economics than politics, I feel I can debate my position rather well. Don't worry, I will try to keep this short.
You obviously fear what you don't know, in this case, the free market. What is so inherently evil about two people making a voluntary, non-violent transaction where both parties are winners? (I would like to hear how that position is nuts)
How can you say it is a ruthless AND effective distributor of limited resources? If anything, it is just "effective," assuming an actual free market exists with pure price transparency (again, I must stress, there is nothing ruthless about a voluntary transaction.)
The sarcasm you have posted doesn't help out whatever position you are trying to establish for yourself. I care deeply what other people think in regards to policies and systems that exist. If I agree, so be it. If I disagree, I ask questions that you should be able to defend, as I have done time and time again, to no avail.
In a study of the 60's one dicovers a organization called the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). The SDS consisted of many groups spread mainly across college campus'. These groups were made up of the most radical and hippie types of their area. The normal person avoided their theories and considered them to be weaklings masquerading as intellects preaching anti Americanisms and supporting all forms of economics and government except capitalism and democracy. It now appears that somehow possibly reproduction, clooning or other misuse of science the children or grandchildren similar to those who comprised the cowards of the 60"s are now starting to make comments in the Peru Town Forum. Their ideas are as weak, unimpressive and will achieve as much as their forefathers. Possibly they will not use drugs wasting their minds for the future and ending up with brains similar in appearance to fried eggs.
In the late 60's and early 70's (1700's that is) there was another "radical" group that formed in New England. It was a secret group bent on disrupting the government and impeded the collection new taxes. These new taxes where necessary to pay for the protection of the citizens of New England. The group was reportedly led by a radical terrorist calling himself Sam Adams. They conducted an attack on merchant shipping in Boston Harbor on December 16, 1763. They also terrorized numerous government officials and prevented them from collecting taxes. The government feared for the safety of average citizen and stationed a garrison in Boston. The Army eventually decided to confiscate the weapons the terrorists had stored at Concord as an additional safety measure to protect the citizens from Adams and his terrorist group.
There is no sane economist who will state that purely free market and pure capitalism is sustainable. It does not exist, except in theory and perhaps in one market place in Bali where I bought a pair of slippers.
I do not fear what I do not know. I fear people who believe in fairytales and ignore step by step improvements in favor of revolutions. They always use our revolutionary war as the example of why radical measures are needed.
If you want examples of the ruthless nature of pure capitalism, check out Love canal or any of the sweatshops in the Pacific Rim.
I also fear debate when the opponent is young enough that know everything. To debate someone who knows everything would be to debate God. Try it with a teenager. Maybe we can do it in a few years when you have gained enough experience to actually realize the purpose of government.
The only thing I hate is absolutes, and from my study of the lunatic fringe, no matter the party, it's about all they deal in.
6:14. There are several sane economists who will argue that free markets are sustainable, go to the Mises Institute, Ayn Rand Institute or Stanford Economics and see for yourself.
The sweatshops around the pacific rim, that you are trying to pass off as pure capitalism, isn't even close to pure capitalism. Not even a distant cousin.
You should focus on doing actual research, not trying to pass on your opinions and what you think is truth as fact.
I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make anymore. You mind is obviously closed off to what peaceful, voluntary transactions can bring us.
You're right. Maybe we can do this in a few years when you gain enough experience in mathematics to see the federal government has put us in a hole not even your grandchildren will get out of.
you can't debate the topics justin keeps throwing in your face 614, so you try to take a jab and imply because he is young he is too inexperienced to debate you? I have been following this post closely, you have thrown off half-baked opinions and one line metaphors hoping to gain the upper hand. I'm really glad he keeps pointing out your lack of understanding with economics. Im sure if you keep posting nonsense he will keep pointing out your flaws.
Oh, and one final thing. EVERY individual who I have met who pushes for free markets has willingly stated that they DO NOT know everything. Only YOU know whats best for YOU, not some government bureaucrat, which I'm sure why justin keeps stressing for a peaceful, voluntary marketplace.
Anon 6:14 Would you be kind enough to state the purposes of government. I believe the government has gone way overboard in its efforts to be everything for everyone. This over involvement is not what government is intended for. Many of the ideas of our modern day governments are blotched up by the same government i.e. the politicians no child left behind. Also the lack of compromise between the two leading parties is harming the United States. You can be capable of understanding economics, free markets and government theories but please explain what good knowing them is when the country is 17 trillion dollars in debt, owes China and the majority of its population is deep in debt and all their credit cards are maxed out. You should have a idea of what I am speaking of, you are a resident of Illinois. Since the 1920's six state governors of Illinois have ended up in a penal institution. We live in a country which has backed people who end up leading their country and than we fight them. What do you thing Harry Trumann would tell the present leader of Afganistan when he shouting his mouth off? I believe there would be no more American soldiers in Afganistan! It is good to understand Adam Smith, Alfred Marshall, Karl Marx, Lenin and the Bolshevik Party, and John Maynard Keynes who stated "When the capitaldevelopment of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done" but even better than understanding them it is more important that you yourself make your contribution to society.
You are absolutely right about everything Justin. I hope to learn more about economics and debate you in the future, so you can destroy me and all who oppose you. And someday I hope to see pure capitalism that is nothing like what happened to cause environmental disasters or the hundreds of instances that gave rise to unions, here of course, with true blue Americans in charge.
In the mean time, for the person following the alleged debate, where did Justin ever debate the only real factual (not opinion) thing I pointed ... the statement that he made that there is NO good government. It either provides everything or nothing. That is a delusional statement, a contradiction in logic, It is an absolute. By running for a position, if he holds that belief, one must assume he is running to get into government and then eliminate it entirely.
Not a single statement he made after that addressed his call for anarchy? Not one.
No where in my statements did I say that current government was doing a good job or dispute any facts you brought up. No where. I am a fiscal conservative and social moderate republican. I detest radicalism in any form at any time.
I studied the Libertarian party and positions extensively and came to conclusion it is delusional. It is unrealistic. It cannot be supported by the majority of thinking rational Americans. The elections of the past support that. You are welcome to disagree. It is not up for debate.
Justin brought up three very intelligent Economists. Perhaps there are literally hundreds more who disagree. Of course that would be me just spouting off against a very personable and well liked young man on the blog.
He said people are starting to realize, not HE is starting to realize. Have you not noticed the country becoming more divided between people who want more government and other people wanting significantly less?
I would have never known about this website if my mother (a frequent blogger) hadn't directed me to it. Seeing as I am a graduate of economics, I feel compelled to say something. I will address the anonymous individual who continues to address "Justin".
The phrase "government can solve everything or nothing" is a common rhetoric question in entry level economics. In scenario 1, where it can solve everything, doesn't address why manipulations and inefficiencies exist in the marketplace. Scenario 2, where it can solve nothing, raises the question: then why does it exist?
Whoever the anonymous blogger is, continues to post one false statement after another, for example: free markets in Bali, Love Canal, and the Pacific Rim. A little research would show that none of these are free markets. Capitalism is ruthless and effective distributor of resources? As "Justin" said, if anything it is effective through the price system, ANY entry level economics course would teach you that.
The category dealing with mutual transactions: If person A and person B come together to make a mutual transaction, then both parties are winners. Person A values the goods supplied by person B more than their currency, and person B values person A's currency more than their goods, so it becomes mutually beneficial. If government steps in the way, and enacts a law that makes it illegal to perform this transaction, then everyone is a loser. I hope this clarifies some things.
Lastly, you must be aware that you are attempting to argue with someone who values free markets (in my 10 years involved in economics, they are by far the hardest to debate). They will not post statements or data that make it easy to shoot holes through. Instead, they will make you question your own position, and if you can't defend that position with reasonable logic then it becomes obvious that the position you are defending is seriously flawed. Hope this helps
I will say this much, whoever the anonymous blogger is must be delusional. Just because we get to elect our new slave masters every four years does not mean order and reason exist.
I think its funny how the libertarians are 'unsustainable' yet they are by a very wide margin the fastest growing political party among young people. One day this bloated government will come to an end, the baby boomers created this flawed system, our children will end it.
2:29 The position taken Is not those who want more government bs those who want less. The debate position was sane people vs those who want anarchy. The statement that blogger kept referring to is an unsustainably reality, the myth of a pure free market. Focus on that word pure. Like all pure in vivo systems , it is theory not real. It has power as a construct, not as fundamentalist law.
Nowhere is free market power and principle degraded. It's by products are referenced, and the statements are not fallacies. The pure free market trade bazaars are exact examples of the closest approximation to the mythical pure free market model, two people of good will bargaining in a free state to get mutual benefit. No government, fighting for market space, no retail price no taxation no recourse for return or complaint other than your fist.
The issues with non sustainable destruction of environment, like love canal, are examples of what occurs in real world application of pure unregulated profit systems. The raping of human labor occurring both today in the Rim and had numerous examples here in this country, giving rise to powerful unions which restrict the resource of labor.
The argument is one of logic and rational government versus a nearly religious fervor behind free markets and lack of all regulation. You do nothing but say his or her arguments are fallacies as an economics student, without addressing the core debate point. The statement used may be a conversation starter for all economics students, but it also represent an extremist position. As a debate point it is virtually untenable, no matter the degree or economic prowess of the person saying it.
Let's put it another way. If we say the voters review and then purchase with a barter vote currency whichever candidate or system they value every election, by pure free market economics, the pure capitalists pure free market "product" has been repeatedly rejected by the voting consumer. The rational that the buyer is somehow uneducated, flawed, that the government allows money to trump your Noble pure free market systems, with marketing ads and fear mongering...well it does not hold water. Trust in the intelligence and fundamental good will of both parties in a transaction are inviolate rules in the pure free market. You are seeing the control of major party monopolies, and any laws to equalize funding and limit lobbying would be interfering in the pure free market sale and purchase of government rule and law.
The very forces of free market constantly reject radicalism of all forms, and the continued ludicrous example of our founding fathers creating revolution against a distant pure taxing regime is getting very very old. While the tea party and libertarians live in an academic model, real working republicans, independents and democrats of good will try to make incremental improvement.
For you guys, viva la revolution. Just dont throw the baby out with the bath water.
6:29 Extremist position? Yes, you are correct. An economic model based on freedom and voluntary transactions where everyone is a winner is complete lunacy, and extremists such as myself should be cast out.
Why do you keep going back to love canal, citing that that is what free markets gets us? A man made disaster does not equate to a free market tragedy, but continue to pursue that nonsense if that is what makes you happy.
44 comments:
Absolutely! Everyone should approach government like they would an unfamiliar animal. Government, by its very nature, restricts liberty and our natural rights. The question is: How many restrictions do we allow in the name of the greater good? Everything government does needs to be challenged, no matter how benign it mau sound.
OMG! I can't believe that you actually belive that 11:52! All the problems today are caused by exactly what you are saying! We are civilized people. As such, we turn over certain things to government, which looks out for all of our best interests! Any other way, and people would just freek out - we have liberties, but I mean gosh! These liberties need to be curtailed when the interfere with the good of society in general. And we need government control to decide what is good for society in general and what is good for us! Most people can't be trusted anyway and they should be controled in some form.
9:56 PM
So are you a sheep willing to do whatever your government says and actually believe they are looking out for your best interests.
I suggest you take a few more history of the world classes and certainly a civics class. Some history of the United States is certainly in order and please think for yourself.
I do wonder how old you are?
Wow. I can't believe what I just read 9:56
9:56 loves to play with you nutty libertarians lol.
Government is a necessity for a pluralistic society. It is not an independent floating demon. It is NOT inherently evil. It is built by you, me, our brothers and sisters and manned by them.
Check the personal history of almost every great quotation such as that starting this blog, deep into the psyche and writings of the person. Almost all had parent issues.. Problems with control and authority figures. Often the responsible child who detested the way Mommy or Daddy controlled them. Grow up and realize that there is good and bad in everyone, and good and bad in every decision and every governing group.
Humans do need rules, regulations , and fairness. Most pure libertarians consider themselves responsible and assume everyone is or should be like them. Minimalist government and maximum personal responsibility. They also believe in real pure free markets and Santa Claus. If people were inherently good, no governing is necessary, if they are inherently evil no government will matter, and if they are childish narcissists they think government is inherently restrictive and evil. One of the primary reasons we need laws and governing is right above.. Every idiot thinks their view of the world is exactly the truth.
Its a mixed bag.
So Mr. 6:06 - you are saying that anyone that challanges the "Nanny State" aka New Progressive (Democrat / Socialist) agenda is suffering from some sort of mental problem?
No I am saying that any one who sees the world myopically , liberal or democrat or conservative republican or libertarian is generally part of the problem. And if you view the words and quotes of people from the past without knowing their personal history, you are falling into the trap of deifying narcissists and people with problems with authority.
Most libertarians are more fantatic and like religious revolutionaries and not concerned with practical solutions and compromise. Such politicians and leaders in the past were called moderates and diplomats. We have no need of them in our current gun crazed WWF tribal politicians.
But It is more comfortable to surround yourselves with like minded people to make sure your closed mind does not accidentally pop open.
Well 5:03, how do you see the world? Even though you have picked four classes of political parties out of a hat, it is becoming more evident today that people are starting to realize that either government can solve everything, or government can solve nothing.
Since your second paragraph decided to center on libertarians, I'm curious what "practical solutions" you feel they can't come up with, as well as how compromise isn't attainable.
Anon 9:44 First of all realize that government is not intended to solve everything nor is it intended to solve nothing.
4:54 p.m. then why does government have rules and regulations in every sector of our economy? If it isn't going to solve anything, nor will it solve nothing, then why does it exist?
9:44 By your very statement that government can solve everything or nothing, you prove my point. Always polar extremes. Black and white.
Libertarians are at there core responsible anarchists, believing that rule of law is not essential, regulation is not necessary, and freedom is attained only through personal responsibility.
My choice of political parties was not random and my focus is on the liberal fringe, the conservative far right, the religious, and NRA fanatics , and the libertarians.
All can point at the problems of our bloated government and cry revolution is what is necessary. But progress comes only through moderation and statesmanship. Progress through inclusion and intellect over dogma, by rejecting a plank of radical change and embracing one of true continuous improvement.
I do not think libertarians are bad people, but I use the example of their continued fringe appeal. When 30 people say you are crazy, it does not prove that you are. But it does mean you need to look very hard at yourself, and libertarians spend much more time looking at what is wrong with others than they do in examining there own political view AND it's repeated dysfunction.
I have read and reread every single document ever handed out by their candidates, mostly because they are always very succinct and accurate in describing the problems facing our nation, and always so short on functional solutions. Some people define themselves by walking a different path and following the beat of a different drummer. A rebel without a cause is often just a rebel without a clue.
Government in its simplest function exists to accomplish what we cannot do as individuals or a small group. Presently we are full of our government and yet the problems are continuously increasing. Could the answer be to not increase government and the number of rules and regulations but to simply elect government representation that will enforce the basic existing rules and regulations that we already have.
Regarding tonight's city council meeting on the city's web site, I noticed that expenses for fire trucks is going to be discussed. Why isn't Liberty Fire contributing more private donations to these purchases other then what is mentioned? Wasn't it mentioned that Liberty has several hundred thousands of dollars in its account? Why the need for two new fire trucks? Where is all the money that has been donated to Liberty going over the past many years?
no no no - the purpose of government is to find out how long a shrimp can run on an underwater treadmill any why fat lesbians like the company of other fat lesbians. We simply cannot exist without knowing the answers to these and other questions.
My apologies to any robust women in comfortable shoes out there. But, the polarization we are experiencing today is a direct result of overreaching and bloated government. The problem is that a bureaucratic system will always find a way to perpetuate itself and expand. It will consume its entire budget - then ask for more! The only way to prevent the entire system from going down is to "cull the herd" so to speak. I am willing to bet that EVERY government and EVERY program could be cut by 10% and nobody on the outside would notice. What should be done is simple - cut everything by 20%, then reevaluate. Some programs would revert to the previous funding levels, others would demonstrate that they are not necessary and be subject to more cuts.
11:43 - the NRA is a civil rights group, no different than the NAACP. Why don't you point out the NAACP as being fanatical?
Lois, I cannot believe that you let a comment like 11:45's first paragraph go through. How insulting.
One of our biggest problems is the direct election of US Senators. Prior to enacting the 17th amendment, senators where chosen by the State Legislatures, not directly elected by the people. This has made the Senate subject to whims in popular opinion. Because of this, we are stuck with popular idiots such as Nancy Pelosi implementing government policy. If senators where appointed by the legislatures, I doubt we would have Obamma Care, No Child Left Behind, and all the "unfunded" mandates.
We cannot let the majority rule in many cases because the majority is often wrong. It think it was Franklin that said the republic is doomed once the electorate figures out they can vote themselves money.
The thing about the gay women is an actual government study - although I do believe they used the term overweight.
Actually, I was wrong. The study was to figure out why a majority of gay women where obese even though the majority of gay men where not. They spent $2.2 million and I don't think they came to any conclusions.
11:43 I haven't proved any points you have made (have you made any?). You have this uncanny ability to type a lot of words without saying much at all. I haven't seen a single shred of what you would do to solve problems, kind of like the democrats, republicans, and "independents," and if you did, it would most likely be filled with inconsistencies.
According to you, we get "progress through inclusion and intellect over dogma", yet I should "take a hard look at myself" because you and 30 of your cult members say so (are they anonymous, too?). Do you see the contradiction?
Even if they or you did, it wouldn't matter-“If you care about what others think of you, then you will always be their slave.”-James Frey.
You say libertarians are short on "functional solutions." Why? Because the algorithm can't be blue-printed?
You say "libertarians spend much more time looking at what is wrong with others than they do in examining there own political view AND it's repeated dysfunction." That is a completely inaccurate, biased statement. Libertarians find faults in systems, not in people, and attempt to correct them through voluntary exchange. You should research facts before posting drivel such as that.
I debate individuals like you all the time. You sit back and throw random statements to confuse people into thinking you possess some sort of higher wisdom. Tell me, at the corner of every libertarian argument is the push for a free market (yet you don't feel it is a "functional solution" for anything): what exists today that the free market can not provide, both at a cheaper cost, and a higher quality?
Justin, I did not debate you. If you have taken debate class, you would see you debated yourself. You hold a tenet of absolutes that are indefensible and not supported by historical facts.
We must come to the realization that government can solve everything or nothing?
In that statement is the absolute seed of anarchy. It states essentially there is no purpose or use for government . It is purely overhead, useless.
"If you care about what others think of you you will always be there slave. "
Are you serious? Do you even know the history of Frey, his personal influences and upbringing? As you call me out for research...check out your heroes. Look behind the curtain.
An enlightened and thinking man asks continuously for feedback on what others think. Others are your mirrors. Like many young zealots you will carefully avoid any mirror that shows something that is not flattering.
You should care deeply about what others think of you if you expect to lead them. To serve them. If anyone were to run against you again, they need to bring up your opinion of government and that very statement.
As far as you attacks on my opinions as being devoid of solution, again you make an irrelevant statement. My point is that any fringe group, any extremist is the actual useless overhead. You get angry because of the irrelevancy of the party I used as an example.
It apparently cut too close to the bone with you. I assure you if I had chosen to attack the Nader , or Green party, or the socialist democratic agenda, you would loved my words and understood them, praised them as spot on and succinct.
My sole point is that tribalism, dogma, and rigid revoluntionaries share many characteristics with the parties and people they hate. They are becoming less of a nuisance and more of a danger. Example, Tea Party government shut downs.
You want me to give you a well supported, logical well thought out black and white solution to complex problems.
Here it is.
There isn't one.
Go celebrate the next after party for the next Libertarian loss.
If you want to debate, stick to debating facts, not opinion, and try to avoid the personal attacks on "people like me" who I am certain you debate all the time but learn nothing from. After all, we talk a lot and say very little. Very little you agree with anyway. So how can it be of any value.
You will do well in politics Justin. You and Harl have a lot in common. Both stick to your guns.
9:39 Where do I begin?!?
First off, I don't need to learn about the history of Frey. Understanding his influence and upbringing is irrelevant to the quote. I could care less if Barack Obama or John McCain or Oprah Winfrey said it. It is a good quote, one that is sound in thought, but again, in your opinion, I must "look behind the curtain" and "check out my heroes" (just because I like his quote, it doesn't make him my hero, just another random misguided statement you like to put out there).
You say "any extremist is the actual useless overhead." That's funny. Our Founding Fathers have been labeled as extremists under the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute training guide. Heaven forbid men took a shot at liberty and freedom!
What do we have here? Another random opinion: "I assure you if I had chosen to attack the Nader , or Green party, or the socialist democratic agenda, you would loved my words and understood them, praised them as spot on and succinct." Again, these parties are but systems. If they stand for something I don't agree with, I will be asking questions on how a position makes sense, not verbally bludgeoning them.
"If anyone were to run against you again, they need to bring up your opinion of government." I talk to mostly working class citizens every day, unless you have been living under a rock, or just flat out don't understand mathematics or economics, you would know the picture is rather grim, on all levels of government.
Finally, "If you want to debate, stick to debating facts, not opinion." You should heed by those words as well. All you have thrown at me is one opinion after another (2 our of your last 3 sentences are but opinions).
Even after it is all said and done, you have yet to answer the one question I have put out there that is the cornerstone of any true Libertarians ideals: Why do you resist what a free market has to offer?
9:39. I will say this much, instead of trying to take a biased, assumed approach of what my position is in regards to an issue, the easiest route, and one that will save you tons of keyboard clicks, is to ask.
So 9:39, are you saying that our rights are given to us by government and are subject to change or nullification based on the contemporary needs of society?
Here is something to ponder 9:39:
"Once upon a time (in the 1800s), "liberal" and "libertarian" meant the same thing; "liberals" were individualist, distrustful of state power, pro-free- market, and opposed to the entrenched privilege of the feudal and mercantilist system. After 1870, the "liberals" were gradually seduced (primarily by the Fabian socialists) into believing that the state could and should be used to guarantee "social justice". They largely forgot about individual freedom, especially economic freedom, and nowadays spend most of their time justifying higher taxes, bigger government, and more regulation. Libertarians call this socialism without the brand label and want no part of it."
"Most libertarians have no interest in returning to an idealized past. More generally, libertarians hold no brief for the right wing's rather overt militarist, racist, sexist, and authoritarian tendencies and reject conservative attempts to "legislate morality" with censorship, drug laws, and obnoxious Bible-thumping. Though libertarians believe in free-enterprise capitalism, we also refuse to stooge for the military-industrial complex as conservatives are wont to do."
9:39 - It sounds as if you would rather roll along with the herd. The majority is not always right - the majority is often wrong and needs to be persuaded. It also sounds as if you view government as an equalizer and it should be used to keep non-intellectuals in check. Keep them dependent so to speak. Reading deeper between the lines, I think you just might believe that electing representatives is sort of like electing a Mom or Dad.... or a "Big Brother." Somebody to tell us everything is OK and we are being taken care of by people that "know better."
I am saying one thing. Irrelevance and extremism does not constitute a platform for change. In general, succesful leaders have worked within the Current government systems to effect practical change. Unfortunately, now the government has polarized and has become bloated and ineffective.
I have read more Libertarian garbage than I care to. Their approach offers as much chance of practical success as any myth. There reliance on the pure Free Market is as realistic as trying out communism or giving it all over to the Pope to run. The pure free market , or capitalism , is a myth. It is illusion in modern developed counties.
It is a driver, to be sure, but it's side effects are littered throughout history. It is a ruthless and effective distributor of limited resources. It is the antithesis of liberal socialism
And both positions are nuts.
There is no debate when individuals do not care what the other person says. You are steeped in a particular view of the world. No one will change it.
I am sick of the rigid and dogmatic and revolutionary approaches, because in my OPINION they are what is tearing this country apart.
You will of course tear this post apart as well, but I can save you and free market tribe the trouble. You are right. The government is evil, in it's entirety and all safety nets and any hint of socialism must be ripped out, by revolution if necessary. Thanks for converting me. Where do I sign up.
Don't worry I will bring my own gun, initiative, capital, and seed money... As well as have the courtesy to die without any government sponsored healthcare or benefits. If I do fail, I will be certain to make sure I am eliminated before I cause any burden to another free responsible citizen. And by my failure I will learn, and others will learn as well. And I will make sure to be home schooled, and maintain a disdain for any institute of higher learning or degree besides economic theory. Thank you all for showing me the future and what should be.
7:41. I only tear your posts apart when I feel a dose of logic and reason needs to be applied, and since this relates more to economics than politics, I feel I can debate my position rather well. Don't worry, I will try to keep this short.
You obviously fear what you don't know, in this case, the free market. What is so inherently evil about two people making a voluntary, non-violent transaction where both parties are winners? (I would like to hear how that position is nuts)
How can you say it is a ruthless AND effective distributor of limited resources? If anything, it is just "effective," assuming an actual free market exists with pure price transparency (again, I must stress, there is nothing ruthless about a voluntary transaction.)
The sarcasm you have posted doesn't help out whatever position you are trying to establish for yourself. I care deeply what other people think in regards to policies and systems that exist. If I agree, so be it. If I disagree, I ask questions that you should be able to defend, as I have done time and time again, to no avail.
In a study of the 60's one dicovers a organization called the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). The SDS consisted of many groups spread mainly across college campus'. These groups were made up of the most radical and hippie types of their area. The normal person avoided their theories and considered them to be weaklings masquerading as intellects preaching anti Americanisms and supporting all forms of economics and government except capitalism and democracy. It now appears that somehow possibly reproduction, clooning or other misuse of science the children or grandchildren similar to those who comprised the cowards of the 60"s are now starting to make comments in the Peru Town Forum. Their ideas are as weak, unimpressive and will achieve as much as their forefathers. Possibly they will not use drugs wasting their minds for the future and ending up with brains similar in appearance to fried eggs.
Mr. 10:58
In the late 60's and early 70's (1700's that is) there was another "radical" group that formed in New England. It was a secret group bent on disrupting the government and impeded the collection new taxes. These new taxes where necessary to pay for the protection of the citizens of New England. The group was reportedly led by a radical terrorist calling himself Sam Adams. They conducted an attack on merchant shipping in Boston Harbor on December 16, 1763. They also terrorized numerous government officials and prevented them from collecting taxes. The government feared for the safety of average citizen and stationed a garrison in Boston. The Army eventually decided to confiscate the weapons the terrorists had stored at Concord as an additional safety measure to protect the citizens from Adams and his terrorist group.
Justin
There is no sane economist who will state that purely free market and pure capitalism is sustainable. It does not exist, except in theory and perhaps in one market place in Bali where I bought a pair of slippers.
I do not fear what I do not know. I fear people who believe in fairytales and ignore step by step improvements in favor of revolutions. They always use our revolutionary war as the example of why radical measures are needed.
If you want examples of the ruthless nature of pure capitalism, check out Love canal or any of the sweatshops in the Pacific Rim.
I also fear debate when the opponent is young enough that know everything. To debate someone who knows everything would be to debate God. Try it with a teenager. Maybe we can do it in a few years when you have gained enough experience to actually realize the purpose of government.
The only thing I hate is absolutes, and from my study of the lunatic fringe, no matter the party, it's about all they deal in.
6:14. There are several sane economists who will argue that free markets are sustainable, go to the Mises Institute, Ayn Rand Institute or Stanford Economics and see for yourself.
The sweatshops around the pacific rim, that you are trying to pass off as pure capitalism, isn't even close to pure capitalism. Not even a distant cousin.
You should focus on doing actual research, not trying to pass on your opinions and what you think is truth as fact.
I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make anymore. You mind is obviously closed off to what peaceful, voluntary transactions can bring us.
You're right. Maybe we can do this in a few years when you gain enough experience in mathematics to see the federal government has put us in a hole not even your grandchildren will get out of.
you can't debate the topics justin keeps throwing in your face 614, so you try to take a jab and imply because he is young he is too inexperienced to debate you? I have been following this post closely, you have thrown off half-baked opinions and one line metaphors hoping to gain the upper hand. I'm really glad he keeps pointing out your lack of understanding with economics. Im sure if you keep posting nonsense he will keep pointing out your flaws.
Oh, and one final thing. EVERY individual who I have met who pushes for free markets has willingly stated that they DO NOT know everything. Only YOU know whats best for YOU, not some government bureaucrat, which I'm sure why justin keeps stressing for a peaceful, voluntary marketplace.
Anon 6:14 Would you be kind enough to state the purposes of government. I believe the government has gone way overboard in its efforts to be everything for everyone. This over involvement is not what government is intended for.
Many of the ideas of our modern day governments are blotched up by the same government i.e. the politicians no child left behind.
Also the lack of compromise between the two leading parties is harming the United States. You can be capable of understanding economics, free markets and government theories but please explain what good knowing them is when the country is 17 trillion dollars in debt, owes China and the majority of its population is deep in debt and all their credit cards are maxed out. You should have a idea of what I am speaking of, you are a resident of Illinois. Since the 1920's six state governors of Illinois have ended up in a penal institution. We live in a country which has backed people who end up leading their country and than we fight them. What do you thing Harry Trumann would tell the present leader of Afganistan when he shouting his mouth off? I believe there would be no more American soldiers in Afganistan!
It is good to understand Adam Smith, Alfred Marshall, Karl Marx, Lenin and the Bolshevik Party, and John Maynard Keynes who stated "When the capitaldevelopment of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done" but even better than understanding them it is more important that you yourself make your contribution to society.
You are absolutely right about everything Justin. I hope to learn more about economics and debate you in the future, so you can destroy me and all who oppose you. And someday I hope to see pure capitalism that is nothing like what happened to cause environmental disasters or the hundreds of instances that gave rise to unions, here of course, with true blue Americans in charge.
In the mean time, for the person following the alleged debate, where did Justin ever debate the only real factual (not opinion) thing I pointed ... the statement that he made that there is NO good government. It either provides everything or nothing. That is a delusional statement, a contradiction in logic, It is an absolute. By running for a position, if he holds that belief, one must assume he is running to get into government and then eliminate it entirely.
Not a single statement he made after that addressed his call for anarchy? Not one.
No where in my statements did I say that current government was doing a good job or dispute any facts you brought up. No where. I am a fiscal conservative and social moderate republican. I detest radicalism in any form at any time.
I studied the Libertarian party and positions extensively and came to conclusion it is delusional. It is unrealistic. It cannot be supported by the majority of thinking rational Americans. The elections of the past support that. You are welcome to disagree. It is not up for debate.
Justin brought up three very intelligent Economists. Perhaps there are literally hundreds more who disagree. Of course that would be me just spouting off against a very personable and well liked young man on the blog.
He said people are starting to realize, not HE is starting to realize. Have you not noticed the country becoming more divided between people who want more government and other people wanting significantly less?
I would have never known about this website if my mother (a frequent blogger) hadn't directed me to it. Seeing as I am a graduate of economics, I feel compelled to say something. I will address the anonymous individual who continues to address "Justin".
The phrase "government can solve everything or nothing" is a common rhetoric question in entry level economics. In scenario 1, where it can solve everything, doesn't address why manipulations and inefficiencies exist in the marketplace. Scenario 2, where it can solve nothing, raises the question: then why does it exist?
Whoever the anonymous blogger is, continues to post one false statement after another, for example: free markets in Bali, Love Canal, and the Pacific Rim. A little research would show that none of these are free markets. Capitalism is ruthless and effective distributor of resources? As "Justin" said, if anything it is effective through the price system, ANY entry level economics course would teach you that.
The category dealing with mutual transactions: If person A and person B come together to make a mutual transaction, then both parties are winners. Person A values the goods supplied by person B more than their currency, and person B values person A's currency more than their goods, so it becomes mutually beneficial. If government steps in the way, and enacts a law that makes it illegal to perform this transaction, then everyone is a loser. I hope this clarifies some things.
Lastly, you must be aware that you are attempting to argue with someone who values free markets (in my 10 years involved in economics, they are by far the hardest to debate). They will not post statements or data that make it easy to shoot holes through. Instead, they will make you question your own position, and if you can't defend that position with reasonable logic then it becomes obvious that the position you are defending is seriously flawed. Hope this helps
I will say this much, whoever the anonymous blogger is must be delusional. Just because we get to elect our new slave masters every four years does not mean order and reason exist.
I think its funny how the libertarians are 'unsustainable' yet they are by a very wide margin the fastest growing political party among young people. One day this bloated government will come to an end, the baby boomers created this flawed system, our children will end it.
It won't be the boomer's kids (aka the eco boomers). It will be the post 911 generation.
7:04 economics person, do you live in peru? Did you grow up in peru? Where do you live now if not in the IV AREA. curious. Thanks
To 9:31 a.m. Yes and yes.
2:29 The position taken Is not those who want more government bs those who want less. The debate position was sane people vs those who want anarchy. The statement that blogger kept referring to is an unsustainably reality, the myth of a pure free market. Focus on that word pure. Like all pure in vivo systems , it is theory not real. It has power as a construct, not as fundamentalist law.
Nowhere is free market power and principle degraded. It's by products are referenced, and the statements are not fallacies. The pure free market trade bazaars are exact examples of the closest approximation to the mythical pure free market model, two people of good will bargaining in a free state to get mutual benefit. No government, fighting for market space, no retail price no taxation no recourse for return or complaint other than your fist.
The issues with non sustainable destruction of environment, like love canal, are examples of what occurs in real world application of pure unregulated profit systems. The raping of human labor occurring both today in the Rim and had numerous examples here in this country, giving rise to powerful unions which restrict the resource of labor.
The argument is one of logic and rational government versus a nearly religious fervor behind free markets and lack of all regulation. You do nothing but say his or her arguments are fallacies as an economics student, without addressing the core debate point. The statement used may be a conversation starter for all economics students, but it also represent an extremist position. As a debate point it is virtually untenable, no matter the degree or economic prowess of the person saying it.
Let's put it another way. If we say the voters review and then purchase with a barter vote currency whichever candidate or system they value every election, by pure free market economics, the pure capitalists pure free market "product" has been repeatedly rejected by the voting consumer. The rational that the buyer is somehow uneducated, flawed, that the government allows money to trump your Noble pure free market systems, with marketing ads and fear mongering...well it does not hold water. Trust in the intelligence and fundamental good will of both parties in a transaction are inviolate rules in the pure free market. You are seeing the control of major party monopolies, and any laws to equalize funding and limit lobbying would be interfering in the pure free market sale and purchase of government rule and law.
The very forces of free market constantly reject radicalism of all forms, and the continued ludicrous example of our founding fathers creating revolution against a distant pure taxing regime is getting very very old. While the tea party and libertarians live in an academic model, real working republicans, independents and democrats of good will try to make incremental improvement.
For you guys, viva la revolution. Just dont throw the baby out with the bath water.
6:29 Extremist position? Yes, you are correct. An economic model based on freedom and voluntary transactions where everyone is a winner is complete lunacy, and extremists such as myself should be cast out.
Why do you keep going back to love canal, citing that that is what free markets gets us? A man made disaster does not equate to a free market tragedy, but continue to pursue that nonsense if that is what makes you happy.
Post a Comment