Is it fair for moderators to be promoting politics here?

[Roger]

I used to care about this issue when talk polywell was new. It doesn't matter anymore as the forum has earned a certain reputation.

AS long as these issues are kept in General.

[Diogenes]

And wait a second, they're conservative commentators, but they're not biased at all? Good thing they're not liberal, those guys bias ALL the news.
Oh, and as an engineer it pleases me greatly to ask, where are your citations?

I have two points. (Trying to compress this discussion to fewer points.)

A quote from an article I just came across.

A non-partisan, unbiased news media simply doesn’t exist anymore. All that remains of this once somewhat respectable profession are two kinds of media: those who lie about their agenda and those who don’t – and Mr. Gerson’s employer is one of the liars. Whether it’s Glenn Beck, Arianna Huffington, National Review or MSNBC, tell me your biases upfront and we can at least start a dialogue from an honest foundation. On the other hand, the Washington Post, New York Times, Newsweek, Time, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS and the like, have spent years making jerks out of us – lying to our faces. We knew this, there just wasn’t any alternative. But now that there is, their time is just about up.

http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/28/obj ... er-exists/







Second Point.

If conservatives want to gain power and keep it, why is it that the conservative side has been constantly and consistently supporting TERM LIMITS, while the liberal side has consistently OPPOSED TERM LIMITS ?

(Limiting Senators and Representatives to only two terms.)

[MSimon]

I've seen the diagram. While it is convenient, I don't think it's comprehensive. If both Libertarians and Conservatives want to make the government smaller, how is that 90 degrees?

My observation is that in practice conservatives want to grow government. Just in a different direction than progressives. And maybe a little less.

It always comes down to, "look at what great good we can do by putting a (government) gun to people's heads."

We can eliminate alcoholism.
We can eliminate drug use.
And the current favorite: "we can stop abortion".

You have to wonder why no conservative has ever said: "Our message is so good we don't need or want government. We can just change people's minds."

[MSimon]

You are correct, most Republicans have no interest in disbanding the DEA, but that's because most people regard it as a LAW Enforcement agency.

And the more laws there are to enforce the better. Eh?

Because passing laws and getting them enforced is intrinsically good. Well the laws may be bad but enforcement is good. A state run for the convenience of the enforcers is a good thing. Back in the good old days we used to call such places police states. My how fashions have changed.

Conservatives say the strangest things.

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against . . . We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted -- and you create a nation of law-breakers -- and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

Ayn Rand

The only way government can accomplish anything is with sticks and stolen carrots.

So who do you want to steal from to accomplish your goal? Who do you want beaten with sticks?

Government functions by committing what in other contexts would be called crimes. It has a certain utility. But it is a danger and ought to be strictly limited. Government can make you a slave - through taxation or though imprisonment. And slavery is against the law. Except for government.

[Roger]

Ayn Rand

A conservative, hardly, a twisted sorrowful figure, spent her life in a "Ground Hog Day Movie" reliving the loss of her fathers store. Not a Rosebud moment, not exactly.

Thats from a culture that survived the Mongol hordes raping and pillaging, for centuries, always knowing they will survive the abuse, no matter what.

And Sidney Hillman came from the same culture, country and timeframe. GO figure.

All I can do is shrug....

[MSimon]

Ayn Rand

A conservative, hardly, a twisted sorrowful figure, spent her life in a "Ground Hog Day Movie" reliving the loss of her fathers store. Not a Rosebud moment, not exactly.

Thats from a culture that survived the Mongol hordes raping and pillaging, for centuries, always knowing they will survive the abuse, no matter what.

And Sidney Hillman came from the same culture, country and timeframe. GO figure.

All I can do is shrug.... :-)

Fine. She was a lousy person from a misbegotten background.

Now about her ideas............

[MSimon]

Forget her ideas. How about mine?

The only way government can accomplish anything is with sticks and stolen carrots.

So who do you want to steal from to accomplish your goal? Who do you want beaten with sticks?

Government functions by committing what in other contexts would be called crimes. It has a certain utility. But it is a danger and ought to be strictly limited. Government can make you a slave - through taxation or though imprisonment. And slavery is against the law. Except for government.

Revised and extended here:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... prise.html

and here:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... to-do.html

Or you can reflect on what one of those old dead white men said:

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." Geo. Washington

I dunno. Where did Rand get such ridiculous ideas? Where did I?

[KitemanSA]

Second Point.
If conservatives want to gain power and keep it, why is it that the conservative side has been constantly and consistently supporting TERM LIMITS, while the liberal side has consistently OPPOSED TERM LIMITS ?
(Limiting Senators and Representatives to only two terms.)

Because Republicans don't trust people to do the right thing. Whereas Democrats trust that people TRYING to do the right thing in the warped system we have will have to re-elect the Dems, year after year.

If we want responsive government, we need to allow voters to vote in favor of something good, OR in opposition to what they consider bad or wrong. But they cannot. All they can do, if they can't find something GOOD to vote for, is vote in favor of something they HOPE is less bad or less wrong. Thus, given the typical crop of candidates, they are in essense forced to vote in favor of bad or wrong.

I should have been able to go into the voting booth and vote AGAINST McCain or O'Bama just as easily as voting FOR one of them; one vote, for or against. After a few elections where minor candidates win because the majors keep putting up candidates the voters love to hate (and get negative totals), maybe they will start putting up GOOD candidates. I can dream, can't I?

[MSimon]

Government is inherently a criminal enterprise. Is it any wonder criminals are attracted?

[Diogenes]

I've seen the diagram. While it is convenient, I don't think it's comprehensive. If both Libertarians and Conservatives want to make the government smaller, how is that 90 degrees?

My observation is that in practice conservatives want to grow government. Just in a different direction than progressives. And maybe a little less.

Fine. Liberals and Conservatives want to grow government.


I know for a fact that Conservatives have been going on about term limits now since the early 90s at least. Is Term limits growing or reducing government ?

Secondly, Conservatives have consistently supported the elimination of various agencies, such as the NEA, the Department of Education, the REC, the Department of Energy, etc.

What are the governmental agencies of which Liberals have been advocating the elimination thereof ?
eh?

It always comes down to, "look at what great good we can do by putting a (government) gun to people's heads."

We can eliminate alcoholism.
We can eliminate drug use.
And the current favorite: "we can stop abortion".

You have to wonder why no conservative has ever said: "Our message is so good we don't need or want government. We can just change people's minds."

MSimon, with you, All roads lead to drug prohibition.

Seriously. Of all the problems (especially economic problems) facing the nation, you want to focus on drug prohibition?

When I went to high school, I had a good friend who was quite intelligent, but he would not stop talking about racism. I finally turned to him and said, "With the Soviets pointing 20,000 nuclear weapons at our cities, you want to talk about racism? " You have GOT to get your priorities straight. He didn't stop, but he did mute it a bit.

[Diogenes]

Ayn Rand

A conservative, hardly, a twisted sorrowful figure, spent her life in a "Ground Hog Day Movie" reliving the loss of her fathers store. Not a Rosebud moment, not exactly.

Thats from a culture that survived the Mongol hordes raping and pillaging, for centuries, always knowing they will survive the abuse, no matter what.

And Sidney Hillman came from the same culture, country and timeframe. GO figure.

All I can do is shrug....

One of the things I find absolutely fascinating about Roger is that he actually seems to do some research.

Yeah, people who come from communist countries are a bit fanatical in their hatred for communism. I've met people who've told me horror stories about the communists.

Edward Teller was a fanatical anti-communist, and he was the main driving force behind the U.S. acquisition of the Hydrogen Bomb, as well as the leading scientific voice in support of the Strategic Defense Initiative commonly known as "Star Wars."

[Diogenes]

Second Point.
If conservatives want to gain power and keep it, why is it that the conservative side has been constantly and consistently supporting TERM LIMITS, while the liberal side has consistently OPPOSED TERM LIMITS ?
(Limiting Senators and Representatives to only two terms.)

Because Republicans don't trust people to do the right thing. Whereas Democrats trust that people TRYING to do the right thing in the warped system we have will have to re-elect the Dems, year after year.

If we want responsive government, we need to allow voters to vote in favor of something good, OR in opposition to what they consider bad or wrong. But they cannot. All they can do, if they can't find something GOOD to vote for, is vote in favor of something they HOPE is less bad or less wrong. Thus, given the typical crop of candidates, they are in essense forced to vote in favor of bad or wrong.

I should have been able to go into the voting booth and vote AGAINST McCain or O'Bama just as easily as voting FOR one of them; one vote, for or against. After a few elections where minor candidates win because the majors keep putting up candidates the voters love to hate (and get negative totals), maybe they will start putting up GOOD candidates. I can dream, can't I?

You can't be serious ?

The vast majority of voters are INCREDIBLY ignorant. Most of them are herds which are steered this way or that by pretty faces and media soundbites. Very few voters actually know anything about how the government functions, or what is this or that candidate's position on various issues.

A recent story highlighted this incredible lack of knowledge. There was an attempt to remove party labels from the ballots in one voting district back in Kentucky (I think.) and this group of people brought a lawsuit to force the election officials to include party identification. The premise was, that if the Democrat candidate was not identified as a Democrat, black people wouldn't know who to vote for.


It is my opinion, that if a person doesn't know what they are doing, their opinion is worse than useless. If they cannot vote for a candidate because they believe his policies and ideas are the best way to address the problems of the day, then they are too stupid to vote because their opinion is no more intelligent than a coin flip.


Incumbency is the means by which truly vile politicians (Ted Kennedy) retain their positions because of stupid and apathetic voters.

We don't need more voters... we need more intelligent voters who will do their homework and figure out who is best to serve our nation based on their ideas, not on their ability to pay off constituency groups.

[MSimon]

Secondly, Conservatives have consistently supported the elimination of various agencies, such as the NEA, the Department of Education, the REC, the Department of Energy, etc.

And they have consistently supported balancing the budget and reducing spending.

Your point is?

[MSimon]

Seriously. Of all the problems (especially economic problems) facing the nation, you want to focus on drug prohibition?

$50 bn a year in direct costs. About $100 bn a year more in indirect costs (things like higher auto insurance to pay for replacement radios, welfare for families without a father, etc.) And 4,000 or more dead Mexicans a year. I suppose you can't count them. They are not even Americans. Maybe we could count the 2,000 innocent Americans a year caught in the crossfire.

But yeah. It times of economic crisis it makes perfect sense to piss away between $50 bn and $150 bn a year. If we do the typical 10 year accounting we are looking at between $ 1/2 trillion and $1 1/2 trillion. In America.

And our anti-drug antics in South America are losing us friends. Small price to pay in order to send the right message I suppose.

Here is another distortion: grow op stores. There are two in my town of 150,000. So that means equipment that has less than economic value except for the black market and extra electricity used where sunlight would do.

But I propose doing the conservative thing. Go back to the laws of 1912 WRT drugs. They served us OK for 123 years of the Republic and for over 100 years before that.

[Diogenes]

You are correct, most Republicans have no interest in disbanding the DEA, but that's because most people regard it as a LAW Enforcement agency.

And the more laws there are to enforce the better. Eh?

Because passing laws and getting them enforced is intrinsically good. Well the laws may be bad but enforcement is good. A state run for the convenience of the enforcers is a good thing. Back in the good old days we used to call such places police states. My how fashions have changed.

Conservatives say the strangest things.

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against . . . We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted -- and you create a nation of law-breakers -- and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

Ayn Rand

While it is true that Ayn Rand wrote that, you are doing her and others a disservice by quoting it out of context. The words you quote are from a character representing the "Stateists" which she was very much against.

Her point was that if you make everything illegal, then everyone is at the mercy of those who enforce the laws for the state. An enviable position for those who crave such power.

She was not an advocate of the words you quote. She was absolutely against the concept.