Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Hey Libertarians - what about public works?

Posted 2 years ago on Dec. 17, 2011, 9:27 p.m. EST by hymie (391)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Although I'm really happy to see RonPaul doing so well, mostly because of his support for anti-war policies, I am concerned about the Libertarian theory of economic development.

While I see people like FDR developing the economy through huge public works programs, Libertarians would prefer to leave economic development to the private sector.

I don't think we want private companies owning our infrastructure, do we? That would be like Enron all over again.

RonPaul is better than anybody who is running now, through personally I'd rather see someone like Kucinich, I just hope that if he gets anywhere, he can take a more bipartisan approach.

196 Comments

196 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by Shule (2227) 2 years ago

Government by its very nature is inherently social (socialistic). Government is for the collective public to take care of the public trust. When we have big issues that involve everybody, we inherently need some form of a big government to take care of it. The only issue is who is running the government? The people, or a few private creeps? If we let the government go away, then there will be nothing which gives the people a say, and the private creeps infesting our government now will be totally untethered.

I think Libertarianism is more about attitude and personnel lifestyle; as in that we as people should not be so dependent on our government for handouts and infrastructure. That makes sense to me weather one is a lefty or conservative.

[-] 5 points by Algee (182) 2 years ago

We need a welfare state, where corporations cannot control us and force us to pay the little we have. We need a democracy that encourages people to be more politicized and and a government that asks the people's permission before making big decisions.

[-] 1 points by AndyJ0hn (129) 2 years ago

yes we need a welfare state so no one has to work hard and everyone knows no matter what happens the state will look after them, we need high taxes to support this so that no one bothers going into business, we need the state to run everything...I say move to North Korea - see what its like!

[-] -2 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

Why would a corporation control you? Go start a company and you don't have any problems.

[-] 5 points by Algee (182) 2 years ago

Ah but you are falling into their trap. I am not talking about starting a company, I am talking about starting a democracy. One where people are not just free to buy and sell things. One where they can live without fear of losing their jobs. One where people are put before money.

[-] -1 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

So you want to guarantee the outcome? How are you going to incentivize people to take the risk to hire or maybe we should have the Federal government be the employer for all?

[-] 2 points by Algee (182) 2 years ago

You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs. I'm saying we should talk more about people than the economy. That people are more important than profits, you can't build anything in this world without people.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Your first sentence shows you cant talk economy without people. They are one in the same.

[-] 2 points by Algee (182) 2 years ago

Well, we've been talking about economy for many years now, why is the world in such a bad shape? If economy and people were the same, then people would have more of say in themselves and what is affecting them. That is exactly the problem, you mix up two different bodies. People are people, it is with them that any economy works, these people want equality in payment and jobs. They want money out of politics. Profits should not come before people's lives, in today's economy it does and that isn't good at all.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

The people are too dumb to govern themselves these days. 90% re-election rate of incumbents proves it- whoever is on tv more, the sheeple vote for them.

The idiot people are just as much to blame also.

[-] 2 points by Algee (182) 2 years ago

That is why we must educate them and shut down the corporate media.

[-] -2 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

People provide for themselves and their families by working. Without people working we can't produce goods, so I am not sure what it is you want.

[-] 2 points by Algee (182) 2 years ago

That is true people work to live, but what happens when they lose their jobs and cannot find another. Students today come out of college and can't find the jobs they worked for.

[-] -1 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

One of the worst things that can happen to someone is the lose their livelihood. That's the point. You are talking about people and not profits. There are no jobs if there are no profits. Look at GM, the UAW cut themselves sweet deals and bankrupted the company. Look at American Airlines right now. There are no jobs if there are no profits to pay employees.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

jobs

[-] 1 points by AndyJ0hn (129) 2 years ago

the state is a corporation, "a corporate entity with sovereign powers" as is the church....etc

[-] 4 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

The libertarian cult philosophy is based on short term capital gains. This is inimical to long term growth.

Economic declines, caused by an over-concentration of wealth in the hands of those concerned only with short term capital gains, require massive long term growth oriented investments in order to reverse the over-concentration of capital that stifles the consumer's ability to participate in the economy.

Government is the only entity with the ability and broad public interest to invest in long term growth oriented projects like infrastructure. Especially in times of economic decline when private industry does not see an immediate short term profit potential for them to invest in.

Libertarians would have us decline until all those citizens who are not immediately perceived as profitable by industry are dead and gone. Then their economy will strengthen with only profitable producing citizens benefiting from the economy. This is classic economic fascism. Libertarians allow citizens, that they perceive to be unproductive, to starve and freeze to death. Is the libertarian alternative to the Nazi ovens and Zyclon-B.

America is a more civilized place. This drives Wall Street's libertarians crazy. America simply does not ignore its disadvantaged people when those citizens are deemed less than profitable by Wall Street.

As I have come to understand the motivations of OWS it is a movement to restore the long term growth potential of America. Restore humanity and a caring nature toward its disadvantaged. While libertarianism is motivated by short term profits only. Humanity be damned.

[-] 1 points by Supplysider (53) from Richboro, PA 2 years ago

You appear not to understand economic theory or libertarian ideals. It is not based on capital gains but on the freedom to pursue those things that they want to without excessive government regulations or taxes.

Government has done a lousy job of performing in the public interest, in general it works to preserve its own power and influence or those major supporters.

Libertarians don't condone any of the negative behaviors you describe, in fact just the opposite. By allowing people to create more wealth without central planning, individuals are more able to help out their fellow man. There is nothing that says to allow the week to die, only the week companies or ideas. If an idea doesn't gain financial support it dies as it should.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

You are correct, it doesn't understand it at all and never will. It's been successfully programmed to think as it's told to think. Libertarians are on the "domestic terrorist" list as they indeed are the only force which poses any real threat to the corrupt machine's status quo.

[-] 0 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

I have seen the propaganda of libertarianism cut and pasted on forums for so long that is is not even readable any longer. Don't you think that other brainwashed libertarian morons have long since shoved that inane tripe at me thinking, like you, that you are spouting something special. When the fact is your just regurgitating the same public consumption lies and propaganda that have done America so much harm that you morons need to be lined up against a wall and shot for your crimes against America and humanity.

The libertarianism needs to be stamped out like the social disease that it is.

[-] 1 points by Supplysider (53) from Richboro, PA 2 years ago

As a closed minded moron, I guess there is no point in trying to hold an intelligent conversation with you any longer. You just want to dismiss anything that you don't agree with and threaten violence. You do your cause no good whatsoever and point out to the world that you are small minded and should be ignored.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

You are correct, attempting civilized and cooperative exchanges of ideas with this koran thumping Fed sucker is a waste of keystrokes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbLYzw6J7JY

[-] -3 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

Economies don't decline because of an over concentration of wealth. The money is in the system no matter who has it.

People don't want to spend money because they are worried about their debt and know that if government is spending more it haas to come from somewhere and somebody has to pay for it. There never has been a country that can spend its way to prosperity.

So what are you ding to benefit humanity? Are you an employer, if so go hire more people. That's the best think to do. Since you bring the human condition into the argument, which I disagree with, I will tell you that I am personally appalled at the behavior at the OWS campsites. The use of drugs, drinking, smoking, philandering and general uncleanliness is not productive behavior.

[-] 2 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

That is moronic.

[-] -1 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

which part.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

Enough of it.

I am not going to run around in circles with one of you libertarian nut jobs today.

[-] 0 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

Isn't that the truth! Constant circles from Libertarians!

[-] -2 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

When the argument gets difficult, just take your ball and go home That's why the rest of America is not buying what you are selling.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

You just go ahead and live with your delusions. This kind of making up bullshit when you can't get sane people to run around in circles with you is why libertarians are the laughing stock of America.

Freakin morons!

There is no reasoning with you libertarian ideologues. You are cultists without brains with the rote ability to endlessly cut and paste copious volumes of like-minded delusions until everyone runs away from you screaming. Then you post these delusions that others can't argue with you. You then pat yourself on the back and tell yourself that you win, you win. The fact is no one wants to run around in endless moronic circles with you.

[-] -3 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

Yeah, the public trusts government and want more of it. That's what it said in the recent poll and boy are they supporting Obama now. That government spending bill really got the economy moving. Did you hear that we are going to invest in a new car company to compete against GM and the cars are going to have solar panels made by Solyndra. Hang tight, its coming.

[-] 0 points by Supplysider (53) from Richboro, PA 2 years ago

No point wasting your breath with this idiot, it will simply throw back an insult and some 3rd grade comment while ignoring any rational argument.

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

Money is not wealth really, wealth is the productive and creative forces of society. There may be a lot of money in our society now, but the productive capacity is in deep decline. An example would be the -C rating given to our infrastructure by the army corp. of engineers.

Money put into infrastructure is not spending, but investment, which should pay for itself and then some.

[-] -2 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

There is no problem having government do things that individuals can't, the problems lies in having government being so large and intrusive that decisions are made in DC when they should be made in localities.

My personal opinion on infrastructure is that private investment can handle a lot of it where we won't need public money to do it - toll road for instance.

[-] 2 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

What percentage of roads should be toll roads? Wouldn't that be cumbersome, always have to stop and pay?

[-] -1 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

Electronic pay is prevalent now on bridges and toll roads.

[-] 2 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

An iconic libertarian fraud. I found this on an Alternet forum post.

"Simple Google search:"Of the welfare state, the conservative philosopher and author Ayn Rand once wrote, "Morally and economically, the welfare state creates an ever accelerating downward pull." As it turns out, however, toward the end of her life, Rand ended up relying quite heavily on its help.

According to the new book An Oral History of Ayn Rand, faced with lung cancer after a life spent smoking, and without the wealth needed to combat that cancer...,

Rand adopted an assumed name to seek government funds for her treatment.An interview with Evva Pryror, a social worker and consultant to Miss Rand's law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick verified that on Miss Rand's behalf she secured Rand's Social Security and Medicare payments which Ayn received under the name of Ann O'Connor (husband Frank O'Connor).

**--> As Pryor said, "Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she could be totally wiped out" without the aid of these two government programs. Ayn took the bail out even though Ayn "despised government interference and felt that people should and could live independently... she didn't feel that an individual should take help..."

http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/153454/how_ayn_rand_seduced_generations_of_young_men_and_helped_make_the_u.s._into_a_selfish%2C_greedy_nation/comments/

[-] 2 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

She also had a thing for a serial killer who she admired for his psychopathic qualities. Interesting that she inspired our head banker to create a psychopathic banking system. Also interesting that the crime she so admired was committed during the last psychopathic banking era 1927 .

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread708442/pg1

[-] 0 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

Rand was a fascist. She promoted a religion of economic fascism. 2008 was the inevitable result of allowing Greenspan to run the Fed for too long.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

You, first, need to learn to read for comprehension.

I never WROTE that Rand was a conservative. I quoted someone who wrote it.

The is no distinction between economic fascism and libertarianism. Libertarianism is the tortured rationalization and philosophical excuse for economic fascism.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

No. And no.

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

there's no doubt in my mind, it took me a while to figure it out, I had to wade thru the Murdoch mythology about Fannie and Freddy. I People invest in ideas. The idea that internet stocks, gold, houses. are going to be worth more and more and more. If you look closely at any of those bubbles you will find a math issue that created the bubble. Internet stocks had a tiny amount of shares out and a one year lockup on their other share. Greenspan dropped interest rates so the price of bonds went up ----------a mortgage is a bond. The payment is based on peoples income, if you keep dropping rates the price of housing goes up. The fractional banking system uses leverage to function, if you increase the leverage allowed, banks have more money to lend, but you create more and more risk in the system. The world commodities trade in dollars if you print up dollars to get out of the over leveraged mess you got into, commodity prices will go up. This mess was manufactured, mainly by the fed and the policies they peddled.

[-] 0 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

The libertarian economic fantasies that they followed and continue to follow RELIGIOUSLY.

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

Well it's kind of pseudo libertarian, with the fed and taxpayer bailout systems in place. The amazing thing for me are the folks who truly try to defend the current system as a "free "market" capitalist system. I took that test today on yahoo "which candidate are you for?" Mine came out Obama first and second Ron Lawl. LOL

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

I find it very helpful to keep in mind the psychological theory; cognitive dissonance whenever I am communicating with a libertarian, tea party people and right-wingers generally.

What they defensively espouse and what they actually practice are more often than not at least two distinctly different and often contradictory things.

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

It was the same thing with communism, the theory was that everyone would be equal and all participate in the system and it somehow always ended up as an oppressive regime where a privileged elite controlled every aspect of peoples lives, a lot like our pretend "free market capitalism" The thing that scares me about the libertarian ideal is that is gives our country over to huge corporations. Not a good idea.That said I'd love to see wall street in the free market. Bring back Glass Steagall, regulate retail banks and wall street can grow up and go out on their own. If I ruled the world , no fed loans or loans from retail banks would be allowed for hedge funds or investment banks. They could lend money to each other. Banks could buy credit default swaps but not originate them. Banks could hold brokerage accounts for customers but not do their own trading. That way middle class deposits would be protected and wall street banks could take all the risk they wanted and go bankrupt without taking the rest of us down with them.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

I too am a free market capitalist. Which is why I support OWS and oppose the anti competitive and bad economic paradigm of the over-accumulation of capital on Wall Street.

An over-concentration of economic power has led to an over-concentration of corruption of our political system.

In the 1890's we broke up the massive "trusts" that concentrated too much wealth into too few hands. In the 1930's we broke up the over-concentration of economic value in too few investment concerns by passing Glass-Steagall. Today we need to do something just as massive to force the wealth of this nation out into the hands of enough people that it can do some good for the economy, the nation and the people.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

As much as I hate to say it, Bloody Barack Obama is a waste of time.

His Goldman-Sachs bosses would never allow him to even know that such a petition was posted on the White House site. Obama's Oval Office is nothing more than a branch office of Glodman-Sachs.

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

I wish I could disagree with you there. I'd still like to see some high numbers on that petition. I think this problem happens in Washington all the time because the people who are considered financial "experts" are the guys who work at Goldman. There's very few people out there who understand the markets and who would be willing to fight for the rights of the people and for an actual free market for wall street I can only think of one Liz Warren.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

Warren is my Write-In choice for president in the Democratic primary.

The butt-headed Democrats can't piss a bitch about being a spoiler when it is the Democrats who are goose-stepping on democracy by refusing to give Americans a contested primary. A Write-In for Elizabeth Warren is the most succinct way I know to express my political opinion of Obama's Wall Street ownership. Elections are the most powerful moment of free speech that we have in our lives. Voting with a herd just doesn't seem democratic.

[-] 2 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

Overall R Paul ideas would turn America into a third world banana republic real fast. That said I like some of his foreign policy ideas and I agree we should be hard on the fed and question there actions, Just FYI I think we should have single payer healthcare any do whatever we can to save social security so I'm no libertarian. This makes Paul's candidacy interesting to me because I think it will open up dialogues that won't come up in an Obama/Romney race. I hope he runs as an independent.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Nothing will be worse than the two bought candidates running us for another four years.

I have some concerns too, but sometimes you have to say "fuck it, this isnt working, lets try something else."

Unless we go in the route of RP monetary and foreign policy, there wont be social programs anymore regardless. None. It will all collapse.

[-] 0 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

R Paul wants to get rid of the fed. It's a pretty stupid idea. We know what America was like pre fed, that's why we made the fed. I do think the fed should be challenged, not it's existence but it's creation of the crisis under Greenspan's leadership. Remember that Greenspan was an Anne Rand, free market," let the banks self regulate" libertarian ---------------and he's the architect of the banking mess. Careful what you wish for it's bad enough already.

[-] 3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Another clueless idiot calling a central planner a libertarian. I love this messed up country.

[-] 0 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

Sorry but Greenspan had a free market libertarian Ideology and he was the guy who changed our banking system to the mess we are in now. I guess your another clueless idiot who has never done any reading on the subject and learned what you "know" watching Fox. Bring it on cause I have the laws numbers, leverage, history to back it up and I love talking to morons like you.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Doesnt matter what Greenspan claims, go ask the libertarians about him. Its about as accrurate as Obama calling himself a Democrat.

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

OK maybe we are on the same page, I agree the end result of Greenspan's policies has turned our banking system into a giant welfare program for billionaire bankers, but the guy did make banking policy from a "let the banks regulate themselves" "libertarian" point of view and no one put any mechanisms in place to hold those accountable for the resulting "self regulation" disasters responsible for their actions. It's hard for people to care about their company's systemic risk when they have the fed or taxpayer to bail them out and a golden parachute if that doesn't work out. It's like leaving a bunch of kids loose in a candy store letting them do whatever they want and then sending them home to their parents at 5pm.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Ha, ya, very much like that. And then hitting the parents with the candy bill afterwards :)

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

and OH by the way some of that candy was derived from other candy and really is worth 200 pieces of candy for each one of those eaten and the law says we get the whole 200 for each piece eaten.

[-] 2 points by Teamster (102) 2 years ago

Yeah private police who will not solve your crime if you don't pay more. private firefighters who will only put out fires if you pay them. private sanitation workers who will only pick up your trash and plow if you pay them private doctors who will only save you if you pay them oh wait we already have that one. if we allow big businesses to overtake our public works we are doomed.

[Deleted]

[-] 6 points by justicia (58) from New York, NY 2 years ago

And your local police are subsidized by, guess what -- federal tax dollars that pay salaries, buy equipment and "training" for your local police.

If Ron Lawl were elected, what would happen to communities that can't afford to pay full freight for the local police force? Do they get sub-standard policing? Or none at all?

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by justicia (58) from New York, NY 2 years ago

If the feds were eliminated from the process then states like NY (where I live) wouldn't be subsidizing states like AL, MS, AR and others that don't want to tax their residents. That would be fine with me, but cheapskates in these states would be the first to scream when they stop getting federal subsidies.

[-] 5 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

You might be interested in this story.

Summary: firefighters let a resident's property burn over $75 fee for fire protection.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/firefighters-watch-house-burn-in-tennessee/

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Wow that's just a bogus claim with no factual standing. Find one source that says Ron PauI wants to privatize the police. The police and fire department are done on a local level.

[-] 3 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

That's what I was saying, but Libertarians usually don't seem to have a good response on this. Like I said, RonPaul is anti war, which is the most essential issue now, but we have to think about the future too.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Kucinich supports Ron PauI and said he'd choose him as a vice president in 2008.

Awesome video of Dennis talking about Ron PauI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py8cXlLyX18

[-] 1 points by tasmlab (58) from Amesbury, MA 2 years ago

On Enron, I highly recommend the documentary (or I suppose the book) "the Smartest Guys in the Room". It is harrowing what that company did with their limited space monopolies when they were purposefully causing brown-outs in California to raise energy prices.

In this privatization scenario, Enron was able to take a limited space monopoly (there is only one power grid) and/but try to create a market for energy trading. Their behavior was criminal.

They did go bankrupt, people went to jail, accountancies destroyed and some exec(s) died.

This said, most infrastructure of this sort is managed locally. The Federal Government's (and the President's) role is more minor here IMO.

The best libertarian argument against public works is likely Bastiat's/Hazlitt's "broken window" argument:

http://www.fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson/#0.1_L3

You'll have to self-interpret a bit since public works are net-destructive in their nature, but the unintended consequences aspect should still apply.

Respectfully,

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

the repelican party is DONE

they are DONE I say.

Lawl wants to end FEMA

the rest of them want to end social security and privatize medicare. Who benefits? Not you, no matter how you slice it.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I wish Kucinich would oppose Obama and run against him. Kucinich is what our country needs. And in 2008 Kucinich said he'd choose RonPaul as his running mate. That alone earned my initial support for Ron PauI.

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

I'm with you. By the way, why do you call yourself Mnemonic?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

From the bad movie Johnny Mnemonic. We got a head full of ideas and THEY want to stop us from thinking.

[-] 1 points by nolongerasleep (57) from Cleveland, OH 2 years ago

I'd like to see non profit private companies own certain types of infrastructure. Instead of a board of directors, any individual that provides capital for the companies operations as an investor, financier, or customer has ONE vote and votes on important issues. Whether you spend a million dollars or a dollar you have one voice in the company.

Bigger government is not the answer, but for-profit corporations CANNOT be trusted with the welfare of our nations citizens either, hence the solution being non-profit companies. Think of credit unions, that's kind of where I'm going with that, only not exclusive.

[-] 2 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

Maybe some projects that we need are so big, that they only could be financed by the government.

[-] 1 points by nolongerasleep (57) from Cleveland, OH 2 years ago

this is true, but it isn't the government financing it, It's all of us. We pay for the operations of our government through taxation. So isn't it more logical that all of us are the ones that should have voting rights in all matters instead of a small number of elected officials. We know they lack the knowledge about many issues to vote fairly.

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

It sounds like what you are advocating is getting away form a representative democracy, and going for a complete democracy, is that right?

[-] 1 points by nolongerasleep (57) from Cleveland, OH 2 years ago

Ideally I would advocate Technocracy or as a last resort anarcho-syndicalism. However seeing as those two forms of government are extremely unlikely, a complete democracy is a better choice to me than our current form of government. Currently we elect a very small group of wealthy individuals that "represent" our country as a whole.... except they don't. They represent the elite because they themselves are the elite. The system as it is now encourages only the elite to seek office. There is not one elected official that represents me personally. There is no one with the courage to stand up for issues I believe in. Everything is clearly marked down party lines with the left and right going to extremes thus leaving me alone in the center.

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

By Technocracy or anarcho-syndicalism do you mean a kind of internet based democracy? Are you an ararchist?

I agree that most of our representatives don't represent us, though there are some exceptions, such as Dennis Kucinich, Maxine Waters, RonPaul, and a few others.

There are some people who stand up for principles, but like you say, generally not our politicians. Or politicians who do stand for principles don't get elected or maybe even are thrown in jail.

We're at the stage now where this problem is going to go from being an inconvenience, to something life threatening for most people. So, its good to think out of the box. What we have been doing, certainly hasn't been working.

[-] 0 points by nolongerasleep (57) from Cleveland, OH 2 years ago

I believe in limited government. Some forms of anarchy are passable as although there would be no government, the functions of government are carried out by the people, which in my mind is roughly the same thing.

Technocracy is a form of government where elected officials are experts in various professional fields. Doctors, scientists, engineers, architects, teachers, would run our government.

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

I see, I think the Chinese have something like a Technocracy. Their top leaders tend to be engineers. Hu Jin Tao, for example, is a hydraulic engineer, and I believe worked on water projects in Tibet. Wen Jia Bao is a geological engineer, who has done a lot of work on farm land.

[-] 1 points by burningman2012 (187) 2 years ago

sigh we should have voted for gravel in '08 it is painfully obvious kucinich would be fine to, maybe bernie sanders but gravel was the change we were all hoodwinked into believing obama to be he is nothing but a shill. sad :(

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

True, why do you think RonPaul is doing better then your preferred candidates?

[-] 1 points by burningman2012 (187) 2 years ago

Ron Lawl will do more harm than good dismantling government agencies like the epa, education dept, the dept. of energy, deregulating and destroying the social contract, increased privatization of government agencies and institutions vs legalizing marijuana, ending the wars over seas, and killing the fed.... hmmmm. why not have someone like mike gravel and get the best of both worlds?

[-] 2 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

If he can stop the war movement, that would be critical right now. If Israel or the US attacks Iran, Syria or Pakistan, it could blow up into WW3 with Russia and China.

[-] 1 points by burningman2012 (187) 2 years ago

and they would be crushed. iran will not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. period the us, uk, and israel can not and will not allow that to happen realize that i am anti war but this is the case i know this will not be allowed. and if china or russia wanna rumble they will have our boots in their ass.

[-] 2 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

Remember, nuclear war means the end of civilization. Such a war would kill off 90% of the people. Russia and China don't want war, they have said so.

A war on Iran wouldn't be concerned with a Iranian nuclear weapon, because they aren't even close to making one, have no means of delivering it much outside of the middle east, and would certainly be assured of it's own mutual destruction if it ever were to use such a weapon.

This war is being pushed by the western financial oligarchy, which, as it watches itself disintegrate, looks on at the progress being made in Asia with bitterness and resentment. Its like the kid who turns over the monopoly board when he's loosing.

The western oligarchs want to start a nuclear war and then hide in their bunkers or in South America, then take over the what's left of the world when it's over.

[-] 0 points by burningman2012 (187) 2 years ago

they could sure obliterate us, uk, and israeli interests these are our countries strongest allies outside canada and australia and they most closely share our values. and who said nuclear war we have the neutron bomb don't we if need be and we have the strongest conventional military in the world. besides war with the chinese is inevitable in the next 20-50 years it will def happen based off trade and resources alone.

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

So you think genocide, the destruction of 90% of the people is inevitable? You may be right.

The US has a full nuclear capability in the Mediterranean right now. Some people think it is there specifically for the purpose of starting a nuclear war. If anybody starts nuking Iran, Russia will probably reciprocate.

I think, Russia and China should actually be our strongest allies. We were allies in WW2, remember? Our countries have a lot in common. If the US could get on board with Russia and China to stimulate each others' economies, we could solve today's crisis.

[-] 1 points by burningman2012 (187) 2 years ago

genocide no not inevitable but if you think that the interests of the us and china are not in conflict you are crazy remember the chinese are in our side of the world and according to the monroe doctrine that will not be allowed to stand we are putting up with it now just like the trade deficits and the currency manipulation but for how long 20 years tops why do you think we are in australia who provides china with the so many of the raw materials they need as well and no i don't think russia would retaliate for iran russia posturing and doing are 2 different things remember mutual self destruction why do you think we were so hands off of georgia a few years back....and it will be the israelis who smash iran not us but they will have full uk & usa support prob canada and australia as well.

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

What do you mean the Chinese are in our side of the world?

[-] 1 points by burningman2012 (187) 2 years ago

they are in south and central america believe that. not militarily with troops but yeah everything else training, weapons for sale believe it theys are also extracting massive amounts of natural resources all over indochina, tibet, africa as well

[-] 0 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

The Chinese mostly have a beneficial effect in 3rd world countries. They may buy resources, but they usually help these countries to develop their infrastructure.

I think the US should be relating to 3rd world countries more like China does.

[-] 1 points by burningman2012 (187) 2 years ago

chinese intention is to destroy us and our superiority in the world we already went to war once remember it was not cold

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

Well, one can never be sure I suppose.

[-] 0 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

I don't think so, I think the Chinese want to cooperate with us.

[-] 0 points by burningman2012 (187) 2 years ago

don't be so sure

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

Yeah, its like we are trying to provoke a war with China, right?

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

What do you mean by "play nice". Such an attack on China could initiate a nuclear war, don't you think?

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

I guess you have not been reading the same news that I have. From what I've heard there is a substantial possibility of us getting into a war with Iran between Christmas and just after New Years, that would probably escalate into a nuclear war.

Of course I certainly hope that such a thing doesn't happen.

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

Perhaps you are unaware of this news:

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey drew a sharp line between Israel and the US, over Iran policy, during an interview with Reuters yesterday, as he was flying back from a two-day visit to London. When asked by Reuters if he thought Israel would notify the US ahead of time if it decided to go ahead and launch an attack on Iran, he flatly stated, "I don't know." He said the United States was convinced that sanctions and diplomatic pressure was the right path to take on Iran, along with "the stated intent not to take any options off the table" — language that leaves open the possibility of future military action, but does not emphasize it. "I'm not sure the Israelis share our assessment of that," he said. "And because they don't and because to them this is an existential threat, I think probably that it's fair to say that our expectations are different right now."

The Dempsey on-the-record comments are particularly significant in light of a report received by LPAC two weeks ago from a senior Pentagon source, about a recent discussion between two of America's most senior generals and President Obama over the threat of a general war, triggered by an Israeli attack on Iran. As LPAC reported at the time (Nov. 17):

"According to the source, the generals conveyed personally to the President that it is the consensus of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, CENTCOM, and all of the other top military brass, that the Israelis must be told, in absolute clear terms, that any military attack on Iran is thoroughly unacceptable and would likely lead to world war. President Obama was asked by the generals to convey this message to the Israeli Prime Minister, and the President reportedly refused. Obama responded that the U.S. has no control over Israeli policy and, if Israel is going to attack Iran, 'it would be better for us not to know in advance.' " Gen Dempsey's public comments to Reuters on Nov. 30 are not only coherent with that source report, but also have Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak feeling the heat. "We have no intention, at the moment, of taking action, but the State of Israel is far from being paralyzed by fear," Barak told Israel Radio, one day after Dempsey's comments to Reuters. "It must act calmly and quietly — we don't need big wars."

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

Those planes aren't stationed there, get real. This isn't Star Trek.

[-] 0 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago
[-] 0 points by genanmer (822) 2 years ago

I believe most answers can be found within this series of videos

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheLeftLibertarian

not-for-profit organizations are the best bet imho as they don't have a monetary incentive conflicting with other more important values.

It is for that reason I also personally believe government agencies 'could function' if we removed the corporatocracy (money in politics). So regardless, end the corrupting influence of money in decision making.

[-] 2 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

Interesting. It seems left Libertarianism is quite different than right Libertarianism, is it?

[-] 2 points by genanmer (822) 2 years ago

I believe so, Noam Chomsky is said to be a left-libertarian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism

I personally would prefer a resource based economy over a market and the use of money. :P

But we do need a transition and the removal of monetary corruption to occur before such a system will ever be possible (on a social level). Left libertarianism seems like the best direction towards egalitarianism which would make such a system less radical.

[-] 4 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

Can you explain briefly the basics of a resource based economy?

[-] 4 points by genanmer (822) 2 years ago

It is the sustainable management of resources for human concern.

Or as the Venus Project puts it, it's a comprehensive plan for social reclamation in which human beings, technology and nature will be able to coexist in a long term, sustainable state of dynamic equilibrium

They do a better job of explaining the idea since they advocate the actual test city.

http://thevenusproject.com/

http://thevenusproject.com/en/the-venus-project/resource-based-economy

A video explaining the basic concept http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDhSgCsD_x8

Essentially automated machines and the latest technologies would be designed into all aspects of society to make everything sustainable, durable, easily upgradeable, efficient, and safe. Money or more specifically the incentive for money impedes all these things. e.g. we have the resources to abundantly provide for everyone's needs on the planet but it would be unprofitable to do so.

So the major obstacle to a RBE, resource based economy, is the current value system.

[-] -1 points by Supplysider (53) from Richboro, PA 2 years ago

FDR did nothing to develop the economy, in fact his policies probably kept the country in a depression much longer then it would have naturally.

[-] 2 points by OurTimes2011 (377) from Arlington, VA 2 years ago

wrong. stupid. factually incorrect. a troll and a dummy. member of the racist right. wants to rewrite history. i guess hitler won, too.

[-] 0 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

This whole page looks like scripted trolls. Supplysider? I mean, just ridiculous.

[-] 0 points by Supplysider (53) from Richboro, PA 2 years ago

I tried for CapitalistPig but it was taken ;-) Oh, and it isn't scripted and I am not a Ron Paul supporter, Gary Johnson, Yes!

Listen, I was not a fan of Reagan cutting taxes without the congress also cutting spending, same thing with Bush. Both could have done the cause a lot of good by Vetoing a few spending bills but neither wanted to jeopardize the rest of their agenda by pissing off supporters in congress.

[-] 0 points by Supplysider (53) from Richboro, PA 2 years ago

What progressive Kool-Aide have you been drinking? You might want to try reading history instead of just throwing out meaningless insults.

[-] 2 points by OurTimes2011 (377) from Arlington, VA 2 years ago

you might want to try reading history instead of slandering and fearing fdr. for the record, you are a troll.

[-] 1 points by Supplysider (53) from Richboro, PA 2 years ago

Ah yes, lets look at his record, the internment of Japanese Americans, and continuing segregation of the Armed forces, truly something to stand up for.

[-] 1 points by OurTimes2011 (377) from Arlington, VA 2 years ago

Try to stick to the facts. Hard for you, since none of them support your view. FDR integrated the military. As for the Japs, well, at least he did not kill a million of them like, say, GWB.

Go back to sleep, troll. You, sir, are an idiot.

[-] -1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

That is an absurd and baseless allegation that makes me think you are a programmed chickenshit.

pray tell, did FDR sign any terms of debt re-organization with non-United States Banks? Why did FDR mandate that Americans turn over their gold and what did he do with federally possessed gold?

FDR, his fifth cousin, as well as Lincoln, set the stage for exactly where we are today. Look in the library of congress and learn what really happened, not what they told you in some outcome based school of no child left behind funded by the same controlling powers. The government hasn't wanted you to know the truth, even about our nation's history, for many years.

[-] 1 points by OurTimes2011 (377) from Arlington, VA 2 years ago

You, too, are a moron and a chickenshit member of the racist right. Read People History of the US and come back to me with questions.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Go to hell, I've read the archives in the library of Congress. This means I've no need to read your brainwash bs version of what somebody wants sheeples to think.

[-] 1 points by OurTimes2011 (377) from Arlington, VA 2 years ago

You couldn't FIND the Library of Congress with a map and a guide, much less read anything in it. Did you read People History yet? Get back to me when you do.

No matter how you try to deny the truth, you are still a chickenshit member of the racist right, a troll and a moron.

Additional flames cheerfully ignored.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

idiot and fool

[-] 1 points by OurTimes2011 (377) from Arlington, VA 2 years ago

Yes, you are both.

[-] 0 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

That's the status as you would find it presented in a magazine like The Economist, the major mouthpiece for Wall Street and the City of London. The only problem is that the rejection of FDR style policies is what has gotten us into our predicament today.

[-] -1 points by Supplysider (53) from Richboro, PA 2 years ago

It is the expansion of his policies that got us into this mess. Since when is the federal government supposed to build roads, supplement unemployment insurance, fund research? The answer is that is was never supposed to. States are free to pursue or not to pursue any of those ventures, the federal government is supposed to guard the borders and provide national defense along with enforcement of contracts. By handing out money to every special interest group that puts its hand it, we have created a society of people who feel they are entitled to other peoples wealth, just because they don't like the way it was earned.

[-] 0 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

You forgot that according to our constitution, the government is supposed to promote the general welfare, or common good. Economic development is the greatest of the common goods, since it is what provides the revenue for all other worthy causes.

Economic development provides revenue to the government. individuals and companies. Than these can spend it for consumption, investment, charitable causes, whatever. Just as long as the economy is good, there is more for everybody.

The government shouldn't give handouts to all who ask, but should finance projects that will create wealth that is distributed throughout society, and therefore less people would need or ask for handouts.

[-] 0 points by Supplysider (53) from Richboro, PA 2 years ago

The government should not finance any projects, it is not the role to pick winners or losers, or create wealth. Simply, it should provide the conditions so that those things can take place. The problem that has come about today, is that the federal treasury has become the cookie jar for which ever party is in power to hand out goodies to those that helped put them there. If it were based on merit then each earmark should be voted on individually and I would argue that any member of congress who has received money from a group is forever banned from voting on legislation that would benefit that group. That way we might have a shot at getting worthwhile projects that are not based on who owes someone else a favor.

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

What conditions allow wealth to be created? Good schools, transportation systems, energy systems, shouldn't the government provide these conditions?

What projects would you consider worthwhile?

[-] 0 points by Supplysider (53) from Richboro, PA 2 years ago

No, the federal government should not provide those. Each of the items you list has always been a local responsibility. The federal governments involvement has done NOTHING, but raise costs without any increase in literacy or dropout rates. At this point, more is spent per student, then the cost of a private school, which most studies say do a better job. Having a federal overlord has only increase paperwork and dependency.

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

I guess that I'm not thinking that the federal government should provide these in an ongoing way, but rather to build or repair them, like was done in the new deal.

Are you opposed to a stimulus program like the new deal?

[-] 0 points by Supplysider (53) from Richboro, PA 2 years ago

Yes I am. Guard the borders and provide for defense and not much more. Schools and roads are a local issue.

[-] -1 points by EndTheFed214 (113) 2 years ago

zucoti (or however u spell it) is privately owned. toll roads are private etc

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

I don't think we want more toll roads though, do we?

[-] 1 points by EndTheFed214 (113) 2 years ago

I dont want more toll roads but maybe we could find a balance between the goverment and the private sector. its obvious that the goverment can not handel anything. only the people can take care of themselves

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

Yes, I agree very much with finding a balance between government and private sectors. The government as it is, is not too effective, but I do think it could be effective.

[-] -2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

"We have tried spending money, we are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I say after eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started….and an enormous debt to boot."

--Henry Morgenthau, Treasury Secretary for FDR

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Here is a good article. Disclaimer: It is an opinion piece written in the satanic bible--LOL--The New Your Times.

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

Even pro-Roosevelt historians such as William Leuchtenburg and Doris Kearns Goodwin have meekly accepted that the millions of people in the New Deal workfare programs were unemployed, while comparable millions of Germans and Japanese, and eventually French and British, who were dragooned into the armed forces and defense production industries in the mid-and late 1930s, were considered to be employed.

This made the Roosevelt administration's economic performance appear uncompetitive, but it is fairer to argue that the people employed in government public works and conservation programs were just as authentically (and much more usefully) employed as draftees in what became garrison states, while Roosevelt was rebuilding America at a historic bargain cost.

Unemployment During The New Deal Era By James K. Galbraith

[-] -1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I would certainly prefer to see folks building things rather than destroying people, places, and things around the globe. Bring the troops home and put them to work building infrastructure.

[-] 0 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

Good idea.

[-] -2 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

public works only shifts capital from the unseen to the seen. No growth occurs. Read Frederic Bastiat the broken window fallacy. If public works were the solution, then why not give everyone spoons instead of shovels.

http://www.learnliberty.org/content/broken-window-fallacy

[-] 4 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

Public works can raise the level of a society. For example, FDR's Tennessee Valley authority provided electricity where there previously was none. That allowed industry to be created, providing jobs in an area where previously there were few.

[-] -2 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

yea - how's solyndra working out for ya ? You missed the whole point. Industry was not created - it was transferred - from the unseen - to what you can see. i.e. TVA

[-] 3 points by justicia (58) from New York, NY 2 years ago

And what exactly is "the unseen." We're talking the material world here.

Capital must deployed in some form of wealth-producing asset -- like electric power plants. If private capital won't invest in a public good (providing electricity to rural communities) then it is logical for government capital (tax dollars + bond borrowings) to invest in infrastructure like the TVA, particularly when it has huge multiplier effects on the regional and national economy.

[-] -2 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

where does the money come from that govt spends? did you even watch the link I provided? here it is again - invest 7 minutes & learn something. then ask me any question you like.

http://www.learnliberty.org/content/broken-window-fallacy

[-] 3 points by justicia (58) from New York, NY 2 years ago

The "broken window" video (which I agree with) has nothing to do with the creation of infrastructure. The video debunks the absurd argument that any event that triggers economic activity (whether hurricane Katrina or invention of the smart phone) is good for GDP. (By this logic, thermo-nuclear war would be great for the economy because the survivors will have to rebuild everything and that will create an economic boom.) Of course, that's nonsense and the video points out that there were other things that could have been done with the money used to replace the broken window.

But this is not the case with government spending to create public infrastructure. There was nothing to break -- that's the whole point.

Government steps in because public infrastructure is an area of market failure. Private capital won't invest in dams, bridges, rural electrification. Privateers are happy to take it over once it's built and extract rents from the public, but they won't put up the capital to build the assets in the first place.

[-] -2 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

Infrastructure spending is fine for things we need. As long as you realize it is not creating any additional jobs. It is simply transferring investment from one sector of the economy (private) to another sector of the economy (Govt). You can see the jobs on the highway project. You cannot see where the money to pay for it has been diverted from. No net increase in jobs. But we do have a new highway which we might need anyway. A bad example of government spending to fit this model would be cash for clunkers. total waste of taxpayer money. destroying things of value to sell more cars.

[-] 1 points by justicia (58) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Cash for clunkers was not infrastructure spending. It was just a subsidy to auto buyers.

You're totally wrong about infrastructure spending not creating jobs. If the private sector doesn't invest in roads, bridges, and other public goods then there's no diversion from other investment. That money, in private hands, might just as likely be spent on wasteful consumption that doesn't add to our national productivity whereas the government can direct it to projects that multiply our productivity -- look at the national highway system, the TVA, the bridges, the public water systems, etc that we've drawn huge $$$ benefits from since they were built with public money.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

Right - no net economic growth at all. the investment is simply transferred from what is unseen to what is seen. Printing money to do it only makes matters even worse. Keynes was wrong. how about Solyndra - was that productive ?

[-] 1 points by justicia (58) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Again, Solyndra was NOT public infrastructure investment. It was a subsidy to a private enterprise that failed because the price of solar technology had dropped and the company couldn't make money. The money would have been better spent if the government had set goals for purchasing solar power -- like the US military has done. This creates demand that the most efficient solar producers could fill.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

ok point taken. why is the govt involved at all in picking winners & losers?

[-] 1 points by justicia (58) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Government shouldn't try to pick "winners & losers." Agreed. But that's what happens when our elected officials are bought and paid for by the special interests.

We should eliminate all subsidies to mature industries (oil, gas, coal, agriculture). Instead we should invest more in R&D and create incentives for the best technologies and producers to thrive. We got computer technology and the Internet through government research programs and incentives.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

And your evidence on this is....?

No economist can calculate the multiplier. You can guess however...

If private investment can make money on a toll road they will. If they can make money on a stadium they will.

[-] 1 points by justicia (58) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Then why do sport team owners demand public subsidies for sports stadiums?

And you're wrong about the multiplier effects. The national highway system has returned billions to the US economy:

http://www.publicpurpose.com/freeway1.htm

40 Years of the US Interstate Highway System: An Analysis The Best Investment A Nation Ever Made

"This annual economic benefit is estimated to have peaked in 1970 at approximately $38 billion. Over the 40 year period, it is estimated that gross producer cost reductions have exceeded $1 trillion (1) --- more than three times the gross original investment in the interstate highway system (2This represents a substantial economic benefit, which is likely to have created employment and reduced consumer prices ) --- permitting the financial resources of consumers to be stretched to purchase more than would be otherwise possible. "

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

Owners demand public subsidies because most of them can't get financing on their own.

The material you linked are all estimates. That's the point, it is very difficult to say for certain what the impact is and what the multiplier is.

[-] -2 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

I don't think solar power is feasible or that Obama is anything like FDR.

What do you mean that industry was transferred from the unseen to the seen?

[-] -1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

did you even watch the 7 minute video in the link I provided? The broken window fallacy. Explain that to me so I know you've done your homework. It's probably the most important economic principle you can learn.

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

I just watched the video, but I'm not advocating just fixing things that have been broken, but rather implementing new, high tech infrastructure that did not exist before. Examples would be magnetic levitation trains and solving the problems of nuclear energy.

Such projects would not only provide jobs, but would make society more efficient and pay themselves off through increased revenue.

[-] -1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

sure - highways etc. are necessary & the feds can play a role. As far as creating jobs it is a net zero. The money is simply transferred out of the private economy - to a project where you can see the workers. again - I think you missed the point of the exercise. The money comes from where you cant see it (the private citizen and what they spend their money on) to a central planner - where they can spend it on what they deem appropriate. No additional jobs are created. It's only that you can see them on a highway project & you cant see them dispersed in the private economy. The theory of Keynes was if you borrow the money to jump start the economy things will right themselves. But when the money runs out - you see things dip back down. Meanwhile we've devalued our currency in the process.

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

I think you are missing my point, which is that creativity is the key to the creation of prosperity. Its not about just transferring money from one person or group to another, but rather about investing money in creative, scientific processes that raise society to a higher level that had not existed before.

[-] -1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

again - where does that money come from? Money is always alocated more wisely & more efficiently by the private sector. That's a given. Do you want private efficient investment or public inefficient investment? Again - look at Solyndra? Obama is fixated on green energy & is blinded by ideology = 500M down the drain to his friends. free markets motivated by profit is what grows the economy.

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

The private sector is good at allocating money to attain its private interests, not necessarily for promoting the general welfare. Enron would be the example of this.

Our constitution says that it is the responsibility of the government to promote the general welfare. Why don't we let the private sector do what it is intended to do, promote the private good, and let government do what it is intended to do, promote the public welfare.

For me, Obama is not an example of one who promotes the general welfare. In fact, I think he is a genocidal maniac who wants to get us into WW3.

[-] -1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

Promote the general welfare - not force their idea of what is good or not good on us. Again - Solyndra is a good example. Enron is a private company NOT bailed out by the taxpayers. Enron is a good example of how the market should work. You can take that general welfare clause to mean anything. If that is the case the resto of the Constitution can be thrown out altogether as has been the case for the last 80 years.

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

Enron gouged its customers, that's certainly not the general welfare.

What about JFK's space program? That was a public project which is said to have returned $10 in economic development for every dollar invested into it. It's a good example of public and private sectors working together. The public sector did the original research, and the private sector marketed the spinoffs.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

Enron gouging customers is between the company & their customers. Besides they prosecuted the heads of Enron. This is what is supposed to happen! Lets see how MF Global turns out. Or Solyndra. Space program is good. Not all govt spending is bad. Just realize - it should be left for things the private sector is not equipped to do. Forcing an agenda on the market doesnt work. Force is the key word. Anytime you see force being used you can say goodbye to freedom in incremental steps. Social Security = Force, Medicare = Force, Public School = Force, Obamacare = Force all equal less freedom.

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

Perhaps you have a point.

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

Education is a common good though, we all benefit from having a society of educated people, don't we?

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

yes - no one is saying do away with public school. just give people the choice. Imagine if every neighborhood had several smaller charter schools rather than one big central school district. you could use your school tax money to send your children where you want. Whether it be public or private. Why should you have to pay both public school tax & then on top of it private school tuition. Right now - the govt has a monopoly on education. they can teach our kids what they want not what we want. take god out of school, teach leftist values etc. brainwash them and look what you get.

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

Wow, that's pretty extreme to me, wanting to do away with all those social programs.

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

As long there is a choice there is no problem. Forcing people to pay 15% of their earnings to a government run soc sec/medicare program is not freedom. Make it a choice, same with public school. you should have choice via a voucher how you want to spend your school taxes. There is nothing more divisive than public school. the rich can afford choice while the middle & poor cannot.

[-] -2 points by voluntaryist (5) 2 years ago

Why do you think that individuals cannot voluntarily band together to get stuff done?

The question is not if people can get stuff done working together. Happens all the time. The question is how. With violence and coercion, or respect and freedom?

The government, which is nothing more than individuals taking official positions, tells you that it needs to use violence and coercion to get stuff done, and prevent other individuals from using violence and coercion. Violence is not necessary. We can live without violence. And we can live without coercive government, although that is the last thing that government wants to tell you.

What do you think about government, which hoards a hypocritical right to use violence and coercion, while forbidding you to use violence or coercion back?

Slavery was wrong. Coercion and violence are wrong. Start there. Then figure out how to voluntarily work together to do things we want. There are ways, just as there are ways to pick cotton without slaves.

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

Individuals can certainly band together to get stuff done, but if they do it as a corporation, than it is for their own interests, which is fine, but it is not the public good, which I think the government should handle.

[-] -2 points by voluntaryist (5) 2 years ago

Ok. What empowered corporations to have freedom from the consequences of their actions in the form of limited liability?

Government.

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

Ok, and there is a place for limited liability. But I don't think what we call public works is the place for that.

[-] -1 points by voluntaryist (5) 2 years ago

You threw me a curve ball there. I was not expecting you to say you are pro-limited liability.

Limited liability is my beef with corporations. Individuals should deal with the consequences of their actions and not have a legal shield with which an individual can suck profits out, but not have to be liable for losses or damages.

[-] 2 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

To be honest, I don't know that much about limited liability. I did inherit partial ownership of a small corporation with my brothers, so it seemed it could be a good thing that our liability should be limited anyway.

[-] -1 points by voluntaryist (5) 2 years ago

Yeah, it is good if you have it. However, it is a form of government protectionism and favoritism that creates perverse incentives. With that limited liability, you can take risks that you might otherwise not take. Corporations behave strangely unempathetic to human concerns, because a corporation does not have life and liberty to protect that a human does. Protection from liability leads to immoral action.

[-] 2 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

I suppose that's true. But, can risk taking have some advantage to society also? I guess the problem is when you take risks with other people's well being.

[-] -1 points by voluntaryist (5) 2 years ago

Yes, you're right. Taking risks is valuable, but as you said, imposing risks on others is immoral. Rigging a system to funnel profits to individuals who force their losses onto others is immoral.

[-] 2 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

But corporations are people aren't they? Just kidding. I agree with you.

Are you a Libertarian, by the way?

[-] -2 points by voluntaryist (5) 2 years ago

I am a free market anarchist. Most importantly though, I believe that not INITIATING aggression, ie violence or coercion, against any individual is a valid premise. Where the truth leads me, I will folow. I was a liberal. I see myself as a free market anarchist today. I don't know tomorrow. My conclusions are not as important as my premises, as the means must be just, not just the ends.

Yourself?

[-] 3 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

Guess I'm a moderate leftist. Like to see a return to the ways FDR and JFK did things.

[-] -3 points by warriorjoe7 (232) 2 years ago

Ron..Paul is against a big FEDERAL government. He says let the states and LOCAL governments handle economic development. If they fail, people move other places...

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

What about projects that extend over multiple states, like train routes, which are very important to economic development. Perhaps only the federal government can handle very large projects.

[-] 0 points by warriorjoe7 (232) 2 years ago

thats something to consider... but do we need BIG FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOr THAT. Do we need a bloated bureaucracy?

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

No, but although now our government is bloated as you say, I don't think that big government necessarily has to be a bad thing.

[-] 0 points by warriorjoe7 (232) 2 years ago

having too big of a government most certainly is a problem. If we didn't have such a huge bloated wasteful government then we wouldn't have to pay so much taxes, and bend to so many special interests

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

What about the government under JFK, and his space program? The space program was said to have generated ten dollars in terms of economic development for every dollar put into it.

[-] 1 points by warriorjoe7 (232) 2 years ago

Yeah and so does the FBI, CIA, Dept of Education etc... just beause one program was good doesn't mean adding more programs is better.

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

Perhaps so, but still some programs are good, right? This suggests to me that government isn't necessarily bad.

[-] 1 points by warriorjoe7 (232) 2 years ago

"We need to re-examine how all of our government apparatus works, and its purpose in being. We have half again too many people relying on government for work or for business, when none of us want to pay the taxes required for supporting it all."

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 2 years ago

Who said that?

[-] 1 points by warriorjoe7 (232) 2 years ago

my friend

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

If they fail, most people won't have the ability to move to other places.

Why put the States in that position?

[-] 0 points by GreedKills (1119) 2 years ago

Ron Lawl is a Racist and believes in Classism ( that's why he loved Ayn Rand) he just uses the Constitution as shield to hide his hate.

[+] -4 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 2 years ago

Shat up idiot