The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Irn-Bru wrote:Crazyhorse's favorite website: http://www.governmentisgood.com/

Not my favorite website, but one worth reading for anti-government types who need the obvious pointed out to them.

Irn-Bru wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:To think that the complex systems in place that sustain human life somehow drop in place from the sky and are not created and maintained by human beings is a product of magical thinking, no better than the crap dished out in sunday school. Adam Smith was a product of deism and the age of Reason. He was a religious idiot. Without government, laws, taxes, cops, the military, and other structures and their regulations, including economic, we devolve, we lose civilization, we lose our freedom, we die.

(1) How is free market exchange not the product of human beings? (How is it something that drops in place from the sky?)

(2) Adam Smith was neither the first nor the best free market economist. You can write him off with an ad hominem, but you haven't dealt with the philosophy itself (not to mention its greatest defenders).

I didn't comment on the free market exchange but do in fact believe that it was created by man and is maintained by man, as well as governed by structure and regulation. Could you phrase the question in such a way to allow me to answer it?

crazyhorse1 wrote:

GSPODS wrote:

Conservatives have virtually declared war on government. For decades now, right-wing politicians and pundits have been disparaging and demonizing government. "Government is bad" has become the mantra of the Republican Party.

So, by default, "Government is good" has become the mantra of the Democratic Party.

Libertarians would seem more tied to the mantra, "Government is."

Actually, as a life-long living being, I've never heard a Democrat use "Government is good" as a mantra, maybe because Democrats are quite up front with the news that some governments are bad. Also, if you think libertarians are tied to "Government is," you should google "libertarian."

Is there ever any thought behind these posts?
Clinton and Obama both run on a platform of creating government programs for every issue Americans claim to be important in Gallup Polls.
If it looks like, smells like, and feels like a "Government is good" platform, it probably is.

McCain runs on a platform of "Government is bad", except where it suit my needs. This is the same politics "W" practices. Limit government, except for the Military and National Security. Somehow, the Republicans think expanding government on only these issues makes them different from the Democrats, who want to expand government on everything.

Expanding government in any way, shape or form is both contradictory to, and detrimental to the nature and scope of the Constitution, which was specifically enumerated for the purpose of limiting government.

Perhaps it would have better suited some if I had defined Libertarianism as "Government Is (Involved In Everything) ... but we don't like it and we don't have to." I don't have to Google anything to understand that the basic principle of True Libertarianism is Limited Government, as in limited to only what is absolutely necessary and essential to a "Free State."

Keep believing that more and bigger government with more hands in, and more control over issues intentionally left to the States, or to The People by the Constitution will solve problems. I believe it will not only solve none of the existing problems, but will also create problems that did not previously exist.

The absolute, in all cases and events, is a constant. That constant is that if the Federal Government does not regulate itself by and through the intended checks and balances, the States and The People are left no legal recourse. The Federal Government cannot be sued for malpractice. The only option for The People is to actively state, "We're mad as hell, and we're not going to take it anymore."

Here's a thought: If the American People as a whole stopped paying taxes until the Government agreed to redress and resolve our grievances, issues would get resolved one hell of a lot faster.

Another Thought: The American People as a whole only pay 50% of their taxes, as a way of informing the government we want it limited by 50%. If the Fed is only seeing 50% of the revenue, that would mean by default that they would have to eliminate 50% of the expenses. Eliminate all departments and personnel not essential to the nature and scope of the Federal Government, as defined by the Constitution.

I am not advocating anarchy. I am advocating the American People getting off their dead asses and getting the attention of Uncle Scam.

crazyhorse1 wrote:Actually, as a life-long living being, I've never heard a Democrat use "Government is good" as a mantra

Uhhhh....this couldn't be a clearer reference to Democrats proposing government as the solution for every problem. Have you watched a Hillary or Obama commercial or speach? Every statement is more government, more government, more government. Your post simply says, duh, I don't get the OBVIOUS meaning of what I'm replying to, so here's a dim witted retort. Argue the point! How does posting "duh" serve your interests? "I don't get it, what did you mean?"

And you use the process of policy = belief on Bush and the Republicans ALL the time. By your own logic now Bush does not support torture, he doesn't say he supports torture so by the crazyhorse rule, bam, no support of torture! Bush hasn't said he supports big oil so by the crazyhorse rule, bam, no support of big oil! Are you going to post in reply to this now, "duh, I don't get it?" Let's see.

GSPODS wrote:Is there ever any thought behind these posts?
Clinton and Obama both run on a platform of creating government programs for every issue Americans claim to be important in Gallup Polls.
If it looks like, smells like, and feels like a "Government is good" platform, it probably is.

McCain runs on a platform of "Government is bad", except where it suit my needs. This is the same politics "W" practices. Limit government, except for the Military and National Security. Somehow, the Republicans think expanding government on only these issues makes them different from the Democrats, who want to expand government on everything.

Expanding government in any way, shape or form is both contradictory to, and detrimental to the nature and scope of the Constitution, which was specifically enumerated for the purpose of limiting government.

Perhaps it would have better suited some if I had defined Libertarianism as "Government Is (Involved In Everything) ... but we don't like it and we don't have to." I don't have to Google anything to understand that the basic principle of True Libertarianism is Limited Government, as in limited to only what is absolutely necessary and essential to a "Free State."

Keep believing that more and bigger government with more hands in, and more control over issues intentionally left to the States, or to The People by the Constitution will solve problems. I believe it will not only solve none of the existing problems, but will also create problems that did not previously exist.

The absolute, in all cases and events, is a constant. That constant is that if the Federal Government does not regulate itself by and through the intended checks and balances, the States and The People are left no legal recourse. The Federal Government cannot be sued for malpractice. The only option for The People is to actively state, "We're mad as hell, and we're not going to take it anymore."

Here's a thought: If the American People as a whole stopped paying taxes until the Government agreed to redress and resolve our grievances, issues would get resolved one hell of a lot faster.

Another Thought: The American People as a whole only pay 50% of their taxes, as a way of informing the government we want it limited by 50%. If the Fed is only seeing 50% of the revenue, that would mean by default that they would have to eliminate 50% of the expenses. Eliminate all departments and personnel not essential to the nature and scope of the Federal Government, as defined by the Constitution.

I am not advocating anarchy. I am advocating the American People getting off their dead asses and getting the attention of Uncle Scam.

Good job.

crazyhorse1 wrote:I would like you detractors of big government to tell me why you voted for George Bush twice

Kaz wrote:If I vote for the Democrat, do I have to have voted FOR the Democrat? Can it just be a vote against McCain?

crazyhorse1 wrote:That's what mine will be

I was surprised you walked in to the trap that easily, but answer your own question you did.

crazyhorse1 wrote:I didn't comment on the free market exchange but do in fact believe that it was created by man and is maintained by man, as well as governed by structure and regulation. Could you phrase the question in such a way to allow me to answer it?

My mistake, then. I had assumed this:

crazyhorse1 wrote:To think that the complex systems in place that sustain human life somehow drop in place from the sky and are not created and maintained by human beings is a product of magical thinking

Was directed at someone, specifically those who favor a free market.

Irn-Bru wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:I didn't comment on the free market exchange but do in fact believe that it was created by man and is maintained by man, as well as governed by structure and regulation. Could you phrase the question in such a way to allow me to answer it?

My mistake, then. I had assumed this:

crazyhorse1 wrote:To think that the complex systems in place that sustain human life somehow drop in place from the sky and are not created and maintained by human beings is a product of magical thinking

Was directed at someone, specifically those who favor a free market.

Free (Market) Exchange was created by CaveMan.
It was Free. Money hadn't been invented yet.
It wasn't a Market in modern terms. It was Thor has Rock. Me need Rock.
The exchange was: Me give Thor Meat. Thor give me Rock.
There was no government, structure or regulation.
Sounds like free market enterprise to me.

Of course, we could over-complicate the issue by blaming the Republicans but CH1 will do that for us. Never mind the fact that political parties also hadn't been invented at the time. Somehow, the Republicans are to blame.

Free (Market) Exchange was created by CaveMan.
It was Free. Money hadn't been invented yet.
It wasn't a Market in modern terms. It was Thor has Rock. Me need Rock.
The exchange was: Me give Thor Meat. Thor give me Rock.

Let me finish this...

Me call friend Warren Buffett, and he give good deal on new rock insurance. Now, even mate can throw rock with no risk.

So easy, CaveMan can do it...

Not to worry.
Babar will solve everything.
Or was that Bob Barr?

I solve my own problems. The reason why? "if you want it done right, you got to do it yourself."

GSPODS wrote:Not to worry.
Babar will solve everything.
Or was that Bob Barr?

Actually the idea of libertarianism is getting government out of the way so we can solve our own problems with real solutoins rather then government "helping" by making them worse. Talking about a libertarian "solving everything" doesn't make sense.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

GSPODS wrote:Not to worry.
Babar will solve everything.
Or was that Bob Barr?

Actually the idea of libertarianism is getting government out of the way so we can solve our own problems with real solutoins rather then government "helping" by making them worse. Talking about a libertarian "solving everything" doesn't make sense.

It was a joke. Bob Barr sounds like Babar, the elephant from the childrens' books. The elephant is, of course, the symbol of the GOP, commonly known as the Get Oil Party.

Barr, should he both receive the nomination and enter the general election, will do nothing, as any good Libertarian should do. The problem is, depsite what your poll indicates, most Americans are waiting for someone else to solve their problems. That is why we continue to elect candidates from the two parties who promise everything and deliver nothing.

I am not advocating anarchy. I am advocating the American People getting off their dead asses and getting the attention of Uncle Scam.

I'm advocating individual and collective (government) take responsiblility for their selves. THAT would fix a lot of problems.

GSPODS wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

GSPODS wrote:Not to worry.
Babar will solve everything.
Or was that Bob Barr?

Actually the idea of libertarianism is getting government out of the way so we can solve our own problems with real solutoins rather then government "helping" by making them worse. Talking about a libertarian "solving everything" doesn't make sense.

It was a joke. Bob Barr sounds like Babar, the elephant from the childrens' books. The elephant is, of course, the symbol of the GOP, commonly known as the Get Oil Party.

Barr, should he both receive the nomination and enter the general election, will do nothing, as any good Libertarian should do. The problem is, depsite what your poll indicates, most Americans are waiting for someone else to solve their problems. That is why we continue to elect candidates from the two parties who promise everything and deliver nothing.

I got the Babar stuff, it wasn't that deep. Your statement he will "solve everything" still doesn't make sense.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

GSPODS wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

GSPODS wrote:Not to worry.
Babar will solve everything.
Or was that Bob Barr?

Actually the idea of libertarianism is getting government out of the way so we can solve our own problems with real solutoins rather then government "helping" by making them worse. Talking about a libertarian "solving everything" doesn't make sense.

It was a joke. Bob Barr sounds like Babar, the elephant from the childrens' books. The elephant is, of course, the symbol of the GOP, commonly known as the Get Oil Party.

Barr, should he both receive the nomination and enter the general election, will do nothing, as any good Libertarian should do. The problem is, depsite what your poll indicates, most Americans are waiting for someone else to solve their problems. That is why we continue to elect candidates from the two parties who promise everything and deliver nothing.

I got the Babar stuff, it wasn't that deep. Your statement he will "solve everything" still doesn't make sense.

I know you can follow me on this one. If Barr were to actually be elected President, he would solve everything by placing the responsibility back where is belongs, which is in the hands of the States and of The People.
"Solve everything" is probably too broad but having a President who doesn't create new problems is, in and of itself, solving a lot. The last thing we need is one more President creating departments and programs that only achieve fiscal irresponsibility and nothing more. Barr would be the antithesis of business as usual, which is why his odds of being elected are slim to none. Americans have grown not only apathetic to getting screwed but dangerously comfortable with getting screwed.

Unless we can dream of a better reality, we'll never have a better reality.

GSPODS wrote:I know you can follow me on this one. If Barr were to actually be elected President, he would solve everything by placing the responsibility back where is belongs, which is in the hands of the States and of The People.

OK, he's in your view "solving" the situation. Just so you know I never, ever hear libertarians talk about government or politicians "solving" things. They talk about government getting out of the way. I think it's the connotation that government "solving" implies government "doing." I'm just explaining my confusion.