Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

What is the world coming to. I think lenin must be spinning in his grave. A Russian Prime Minister (and former head of the KGB) Vladimir Putin, is actually lecturing the West (albeit indirectly targeting the US) and the rest of the world about the dangers of socialism!!! The below is a quote from a speech Putin delivered at the opening ceremony of the world economic forum in switzerland. The link is for the full transcript.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123317069332125243.html


"Excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state's omnipotence is another possible mistake.

True, the state's increased role in times of crisis is a natural reaction to market setbacks. Instead of streamlining market mechanisms, some are tempted to expand state economic intervention to the greatest possible extent.

The concentration of surplus assets in the hands of the state is a negative aspect of anti-crisis measures in virtually every nation.

In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state's role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.

Nor should we turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state."

Yeah...As much as I love me some mother russia, Putin doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. Maybe after he pulls his country out of the rut it's in sombody will give him a ear.

Which, in a way, makes him ideal to point this out as he has has directly witnessed to the results of state interference.

Especially as he has helped create them.

LuciusAR wrote:Which, in a way, makes him ideal to point this out as he has has directly witnessed to the results of state interference.

The thing to remember about Putin is that everything he does is because he believes it plays well in domestic politics. Sure, everyone is political, but with most politicians you'll see genuine plans checked by political realities. Putin has nothing but the desire to build his own political base.

Putin isn't an idiot, so he almost definitely knows there is a vast difference between a state controlled Stalinist economy and the state temporarily purchasing assets... but it's unlikely his domestic audience knows or cares for the difference. What they see is Putin the big man telling the West how it needs to be done.

No no no people.... don’t listen to history, don’t learn from history.

Obama is different... he is HOPE, he is CHANGE. And although his programs are the same thing just with a different name, he will make them work.

Soon, all will be better. The government knows best and shall fix all your problems..... All we have to do is trust in the HOPE that lord obama brings to the world.

Envy89 wrote:No no no people.... don’t listen to history, don’t learn from history.

Obama is different... he is HOPE, he is CHANGE. And although his programs are the same thing just with a different name, he will make them work.

Soon, all will be better. The government knows best and shall fix all your problems..... All we have to do is trust in the HOPE that lord obama brings to the world.

Could you at least pretend to relate your rhetoric to the conversation?

No he can't, because he doesn't want to. It's easy to just throw out cheap political low blows than actually making a valid point that can be debated. It's just taking the easy way out.

Sadly, the unfortunate progression of any democracy is towards an authoritarian form of government. The old joke sums it up best.

“Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch”.

Greater regulation = less individual freedom.

Regulatory creep: A politician’s natural tendency is to stay in office. To stay in office they have to be seen as being effective. To be seen as being effective they have to pass laws. The more laws that are passed, the more society is regulated. The more a society is regulated the larger government has to get. The larger government is, the more powerful it is. The more power a government has, the less power the governed have. And throughout history, once a power has been appropriated by a government, that government has always been loathe to give it up.

There are always more mid level or poor in a society than there are rich. Which means in any democracy, the poor and middle class will always outnumber the wealthy. The poor and middle class will be the two wolves and the sheep will be the wealthy. So on average, in a democracy, the party that represents the poor and middle class will maintain power more frequently than the party that represents the more well off. As such they will continually vote to implement policies that favor taking more resources from the wealthy and redistributing those resources to the poor and middle class. To gain access to these resources, the government has to pass more laws and regulations. For example, the government will slant the income taxes to hit the wealthiest harder than the non wealthy.

A republic, which is a democratic form of government, but is not a democracy, will resist this trend longer than a pure democracy. A republic has more safeguards for a minority group than does a pure democracy. However, even a republic will still have a natural tendency to behave like a democracy, it will just take longer to occur.

The power of a government can lessen over time, typically through corruption, an outside entity acting upon that government, or a general collapse of the society itself. This is what happened to the Soviet Union. (it was more a combination of the three). But failing a catastrophic change enforced on a government, the tendency of the government is to grow and repress.

Unfortunately, the tendency of the US has been to move toward socialism and a more repressive government. If the founding fathers could see what the Federal Government of the United States has become they would be horrified.

Socialism isn't about government regulation as much as government ownership, I think. I also feel that regulation doesn't impact individual rights as much as something like the patriot act. I also belive with a more librial washington thing will get less repressive than more. I.E. Gay rights and Inclusion of other/non religions. I think the founding fathers would look at all the United states has survived, it's growth from 13 colonies to 50 states, Its defeat of evil in WW2 and the cold war, it's march to equal rights and the status of the worlds strongest power and be anything but horrified. I agree with 90% of your points though.

If an individual own something he or she has control over the disposition of that thing. If you own a house, you can sell it, rent it, or use it, or do whatever you want with it. You have the final say in what happens to it.

However, when a government starts regulating things, they take away some of the control that the owner has. For example, if I own a house, the government impose property taxes. If I do not pay those taxes among other things, a lien will be placed on that property, and you will not be able to sell it. You have lost a measure of control over your property. That control has passed to the government. Even though the title is still in your name, you do not control it. Therefore the government owns part of the house.

More regulations= More government control=more government ownership.

Remember the distrust of government authority is what drove the founding fathers. They would look at the gains this society has made, and maybe even approve of all of them, but still be horrified at the cost it took to achieve them. All of the things you mentioned only occurred as a result of the expansion and growth in power of a centralized federal government. Of which they were rightly afraid.

Mango wrote:There are always more mid level or poor in a society than there are rich. Which means in any democracy, the poor and middle class will always outnumber the wealthy. The poor and middle class will be the two wolves and the sheep will be the wealthy. So on average, in a democracy, the party that represents the poor and middle class will maintain power more frequently than the party that represents the more well off. As such they will continually vote to implement policies that favor taking more resources from the wealthy and redistributing those resources to the poor and middle class. To gain access to these resources, the government has to pass more laws and regulations. For example, the government will slant the income taxes to hit the wealthiest harder than the non wealthy.

Your assumption that individuals vote purely on personal gain is simplistic. Your assumption that voting power automatically equates to influence on legislation is very naive.

Look, for the longest time there was considerable voter support for a single pay health system in the US. But it was never a reality on the political scene until US manufacturing started looking into the cost of employer provided healthcare. Once corporations found it was in their best interest to change systems it appeared on the political radar again.

Sebster,
Did I say that every vote is on personal gain? No I did not. I said on average people will vote in their own self-interest. Is economic gain an interest to a person? Yes.

Voting power does indeed have an impact on legislation. If a senator or congressman passes legislation that is against what his or her constituents want, that point will most assuredly be brought up next time they run for office. A prime example is Arlen Specter. He will now face a primary battle for nomination to the US senate in 2010, based purely on his support for the stimulus bill. He went against the wishes of his constituets, and will likely pay a price for it in 2010. That is indeed an impact on legislation. If voted out of office, a politician can no longer legislate.

Considerable voter support does not equate to enough voter support to get the bill passed. If voters truly wanted health care, the democrats would not have lost control of congress in 1994. Ergo, there was voter support of universal health care, but not majority support. Corporations in America already pay one of the highest corporate tax rates in the Western world. Corporations know that universal health care will be expensive. Corporations know that to raise revenue, the politicians will raise taxes on the corporations. The more the corporations have to pay in taxes, the more they have to raise their prices. The more they raise their prices the less consumers can afford to buy. This hurts the profit a company makes. So tell me how again it is in a corporations best interest to see universal health care? I would post that the naïve and simplistic view is your own, Sebster

Our distrust of the government is seen in the short terms they are allowed to serve. As for the house thing, The government has a right to any and all land it "needs" for roads or railroads. It has claim to all land, you can't declare your spot of land not part of the us or make your own laws. So if you don't pay your taxes they can take it. What you pay for is the right to the land from all others besides Uncle sam.

Property tax is levied at the local level, bro.

You also should keep in mind that even more than the US, the Russian people need for their political leaders to make bold declarative statements. They would rather have a leader who seems strong but makes some mistakes than one who seems to be overly cautious or worse, conciliatory.

So the land can get taken but the city but not the fed? Hmmm I must have been taught wrong. In any case It's still Uncle sam.

sexiest_hero wrote:Our distrust of the government is seen in the short terms they are allowed to serve. As for the house thing, The government has a right to any and all land it "needs" for roads or railroads. It has claim to all land, you can't declare your spot of land not part of the us or make your own laws. So if you don't pay your taxes they can take it. What you pay for is the right to the land from all others besides Uncle sam.

That is like saying a person being mugged does not own the property being taken from them, the mugger owns it. The person being mugged just "owns" it from everyone but the person doing the mugging. A person owns property. A government has the ability to take it from them because the government has the power to.

avantgarde wrote:Property tax is levied at the local level, bro.

Yes property taxes in the US are levied at the local level. However is the local government still a government. My position stands. That was one example. The same would hold true for an income tax. Or any form of tax. It is the government taking by force or threat of force, the property of an individual.

I am not an anarchist. I know that some form of government is needed for a society to function. However the sheer size, scope, and reach of the government, is a direct concern. That is why the founding father's fought the revolution in the first place.

First off, let's back a little off of the whole "if the founding fathers saw our government they'd be horrified" line of reasoning. The founders hoped the government would last a generation or two. Even if the country had split over slavery in the civil war they would have been pretty impressed with how long it lasted. That the government they put into place has adapted and changed and yes, grown to meet the needs of a vastly different country than when the constitution was ratified would make them beyond proud.

The founders were learned men, and men of reason. They knew that change was coming, but they didn't know the extent to which industrialization and urbanization would have on American political life. Remember 20 years ago, when everybody though the next big thing in computers would be Virtual Reality, and the internet completely blew VR out of the water? That's what happened to our government. It was established to govern a nation of yeoman farmers, not a post industrial empire.

you can argue the good or ill of any given policy, but not even Jefferson would say that all governmental growth is bad. In fact, he'd probably be just as shocked at the extent to which government helps business as he would by the extent to which government regulates business.

Polonius,
Where did you come up with the idea that the founding father's only intended the country to last a generation or two? I have read many of the papers written by the founding father's. The ideas of freedom and limited government are throughout. However, no where did I see anything to the effect that they only intended the US to last a generation or two.

I think he meant they wanted the country to be around for awhile.

I am sure they did want the country to be around for a while. That is why they went through the whole exercise called the American Revolution. I also know, that they intended that the document could be changed over time, which is why they included provisions on changing the constitution. However they were quite explicit in the 10th amendment of the Bill of rights.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. "

Yet a lot of our current government is not mentioned as a power by the Constitution. Dept of Education, Dept of Energy, EPA, DHHS, DHS, CIA, NSA. NEA, NASA. Social Security, Medicare. I could go on, but you get the idea. The Federal Government has taken on a great deal more authority than was ever intended.

Yep, or at least intended by those that supported the Bill of Rights.

I think people are essentially good. Or at least 70% good 30% jerk. Just in response to all the absolutist statements being made.

In Western countries typically lefty lefty gov intervention has helped economies. Lack of it leads to greater peaks and troughs. Though perhaps to some degree that isn't the worst thing.

namegoeshere wrote:I think people are essentially good. Or at least 70% good 30% jerk. Just in response to all the absolutist statements being made.

In Western countries typically lefty lefty gov intervention has helped economies. Lack of it leads to greater peaks and troughs. Though perhaps to some degree that isn't the worst thing.

If by helping the economy with double digit unemployment and 0-4% annual growth, and crippling tax burdens on those who have jobs supporting the ones that are among the double digit unemployed, as seen in most EU nations, then yes, lefty lefty governments do indeed help the economy.

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that.

Hmm, I actually don't know where i read that they weren't expecting the US to last long in the form they created. I should have been more specific, I suppose.

I think they were men who realized that nations didn't always stick around. The US was weak compared to the European powers, and the internal struggles were profound. I think that both federalists and anti-federalists were afraid that the loss of sovereignty by the states would lead to conflict, which it did.

My point was that if you showed the founders a nation where the bill of rights were expanded, with universal sufferage, tons of new territory, a strict concept of rule of law, and a strong seperation of church and state they'd be pretty pleased. Add in the fact that we're the most powerful nation in terms of economics, military, science, and overall politcal influence, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find any founders rolling in their graves.

It's key to separate their ideals from their politics. I think many would be surprised by the role the federal government would play, but I think they would split, along the same right/left lines that they always did, into those that see the role of the federal government as a good thing, and those that see any expansion as bad. It would become politics, not just philosophy.

My politics are socially very lefty, but economically pretty moderate. I think that the more help a government gives, the more people will expect. I also know that as economies mature and grow and change, the natural rate of unemployment changes, and there are going to be those that simply cannot support themselves through labor. There are two great dangers: encouraging dependence and ignoring unavoidable suffering. It's all grey areas, and we'll probably never find the sweet spot, but arguing that one pole is more clearly preferable is simply naive.

Respectfully, I do not believe it is naive. I believe it is the exact opposite. A priime example of a person believing one system was better than another, and struggled long and hard to change the system was Martin Luther King jr. The system of institutioalized racism was wrong in his view. the opposite view is what the southern democrats wanted. They were the ones that enacted the Jim Crow laws. He did not see civil rights as a grey area. He saw it as wrong and took a stand.

History is repleat with great men and women who argued from one pole or another an achieved great things. People arguing from the middle have achieved little, as a matter of fact, I can think of none. If you can think of examples, I am willing to listen. So again, which is view is naive?

Again, if you think the founding father's would have been so happy or 50/50 happy with our current system, why did they include the 10th amendment?


On a much more lighter note, in one of my previous posts where I listed various govenmental agencies, the built in glossary describes DHS as Daemon Hunters. I did not mean to imply that the Daemon hunters are part of the federal government. (But who knows, maybe they should be.) I was referring to Dept of Homeland Securiity

Again - demon hunters is pretty apt for Homeland Security.

Grey Knights, keeping the airports safe from demonic terror since M39...