Re-educating America's youth to ease Socialist progress

[Diogenes]

But that is the face of conservatism currently.

That is the face painted by it's opponents.

Well actually the conservatives around here do a pretty good job of exemplifying what I said. If conservatives live up to their own press I'd call it reality.

You just keep redefining something which no government can tolerate as a "personal right" and then keep repeating that Conservatives are against "personal rights."


You completely mischaracterize a dispute with you on policy. You simply keep asserting your own subjective opinion as representing objective reality, which it does not.

[Diogenes]

I regard the use of "neocon" as if it were meaningful as code for "I'm a lefty and don't have a clue."

That's pretty much how I see it too. The "neocons" came in with the Bush Administration, pretty much like the "new Democrats" came in with the Clinton Administration.

Mostly Urban policy wonks, they have little connection with the larger constituency demographic.

[Diogenes]

Lets see. Out of a population of 35 million 1 million are addicted to drugs. About 2.9%. I thought heroin was way more addictive than that. Out of all the people who tried it in Afghanistan under 3% are addicted? How is that possible? The numbers in America (% wise) are about half that.

It took China a hundred years to get to 50% . Why would you think Afghanistan would do it faster?
Now see here, you cite the fact that it is something like three percent as proof that it's no big deal, but you don't ever bother addressing how it got from 0% up to 3%.

Tobacco is more addicting. Way more.

When tobacco is hard to get women will prostitute themselves for cigarettes. Shouldn't we outlaw tobacco? In order to increase prostitution.

Only the Brits come off better, since they preferred to barter cigarettes and chocolate for sex with the defeated enemy.

Chocolate is obviously a dangerous drug.

And the rest of your comment is just nonsense with which you wish to bait people. Not going to bother with it.

[Diogenes]

I regard the use of "neocon" as if it were meaningful as code for "I'm a lefty and don't have a clue."

You (apparently) have no clue. I'm not a lefty. Barry Goldwater and Eisenhower saw it coming before I ever said anything (or was alive). So, I guess your code is useless. Besides, why do you care? Does that describe you?

The only part of neo-conservatism that is in any respect conservative, is its ties to the religious wakos and the use of religious conservative. So, I stand by statement.

I would surmise you are a Libertarian. It's become quite the fad for people who don't quite want to grow up and face reality.

Apart from that, the "Military Industrial Complex" which Eisenhower warned us about is very likely indeed a threat to the well being of the nation, but it dwarfs in comparison to the threat posed by the "Free Sh*t Army" Industrial complex.

What is going to kill us is not greedy Defense corporations inducing us to act in such ways that they may profit from our Government, it is the much larger in number of the smaller bites from the swarming locusts of those who rely on the Government to feed them, and I don't mean just welfare recipients, I mean Government Bureaucrats and employees of every stripe and scope.


Educators, Public Safety Unions, University Professors, Governmental Administrators, and the ballooning size of government at every level. We are going defacto "communist" at a continuously accelerated pace.

[kcdodd]

I don't like labels as much as you do. All I know is there is probably not a single person on the planet that I would agree with on everything. But, you can go ahead and keep throwing around your assumptions. It only impedes your understanding, not mine.

It should be obvious to anyone that looked at the budget over the past 30 years that entitlements are going to choke it to death. I read an article recently that looked at the areas of spending, and that area in particular (versus military, education, infrastructure, R&D, etc) has been steadily growing as a percentage of the budget on a collision course with the very capacity to fund it. And it's been growing far faster than GDP. So, yes, I agree. However, I would also argue that much, or most, of that money eventually makes its way to medical and pharmaceutical companies. So, when you ask yourself why would ANY big companies and/or wealthy and influential individuals actually want things like Obamacare, at least consider that, and not just the middle men, or the "free sh*t army" as you called it. And yes, my opinion has changed quite a bit over the past 5 years.

[hanelyp]

What is going to kill us is ... the much larger in number of the smaller bites from the swarming locusts of those who rely on the Government to feed them, and I don't mean just welfare recipients, I mean Government Bureaucrats and employees of every stripe and scope.

Which is why, if it is to not fall into ruin, a democracy must exclude beneficiaries of government from the power to vote themselves more such benefits.

One idea I've had for government divided the legislature between a House of Law, empowered to write law, raise taxes, and authorize spending, and a House of Liberty, empowered to repeal outdated or badly considered law. Recipients of government funds might vote for members of the latter, but not the former.

[kcdodd]

My issue with that would be, how do you determine who is a recipient? If you pass a law giving money to people, but they can only use that money to buy milk, do you let the Dairy farmers get a vote? Or if you create government subsidies to make ethanol, do corn farmers get a vote?

[Diogenes]

I don't like labels as much as you do. All I know is there is probably not a single person on the planet that I would agree with on everything. But, you can go ahead and keep throwing around your assumptions. It only impedes your understanding, not mine.

People like to categorize things, even when it's not an exact fit. I have been complaining for years about the tendency of people to create imaginary boundaries where none actually exist. Classifying people as "libertarian" is just a shorthand way of projecting what constituency block to which they probably fit. It's not an exact designation, but if you have to pick one of three, (Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian), it would appear to be the best fit.

It should be obvious to anyone that looked at the budget over the past 30 years that entitlements are going to choke it to death. I read an article recently that looked at the areas of spending, and that area in particular (versus military, education, infrastructure, R&D, etc) has been steadily growing as a percentage of the budget on a collision course with the very capacity to fund it. And it's been growing far faster than GDP. So, yes, I agree. However, I would also argue that much, or most, of that money eventually makes its way to medical and pharmaceutical companies. So, when you ask yourself why would ANY big companies and/or wealthy and influential individuals actually want things like Obamacare, at least consider that, and not just the middle men, or the "free sh*t army" as you called it. And yes, my opinion has changed quite a bit over the past 5 years.

I am noting quite a lot of involvement in governmental policy from various Corporations who appear to be more interested in utilizing government as a tool to fund their interests without regard to the effect of their lobbying on the nation.

Medical industries and pharmaceuticals in particular seem to love them some government nowadays. There is a great deal of what I regard as the fingerprint of "National Socialism" going on in this country right now. There is WAY too much collusion between big businesses and Government.


In any case, I agree with you on the first part of your statement, and i'm seriously leaning towards agreeing with the second part of your statement.

[Diogenes]

What is going to kill us is ... the much larger in number of the smaller bites from the swarming locusts of those who rely on the Government to feed them, and I don't mean just welfare recipients, I mean Government Bureaucrats and employees of every stripe and scope.

Which is why, if it is to not fall into ruin, a democracy must exclude beneficiaries of government from the power to vote themselves more such benefits.

Yup. Stability occurs with Negative feedback, not positive feedback. Positive feedback will guarantee output saturation.

One idea I've had for government divided the legislature between a House of Law, empowered to write law, raise taxes, and authorize spending, and a House of Liberty, empowered to repeal outdated or badly considered law. Recipients of government funds might vote for members of the latter, but not the former.

We are not going to re-design our current system of government. I perceive that we have allowed design flaws to creep into it, and it is now slowly (but with increasing rapidity) going to wreck itself.


My advice to anyone who will listen is "get yourself stable, and work into a position where you need as little from government and society as possible. Work towards a money-free existence." I am currently in the process of following my own advice.

Also, strengthen your community, and build alliances based on mutual benefit within it.

[Diogenes]

My issue with that would be, how do you determine who is a recipient? If you pass a law giving money to people, but they can only use that money to buy milk, do you let the Dairy farmers get a vote? Or if you create government subsidies to make ethanol, do corn farmers get a vote?

I would suggest we simply repeal the last three words of the 24th amendment. Beyond that, I would suggest that if you pay Federal taxes, you can vote in Federal elections, and if you pay State Taxes, you can vote in state elections, and so on.

If you receive a check from the government, you ought to be by default, excluded. I don't even like the idea of government employees voting for their own chain of command. Unions have created a constituency block which pushes for representatives which give them more money.


In many states, the biggest employer in the state is the Education System, and Unionized Teachers constitute a major voting block. Naturally they always vote en bloc for people who will give them more money one way or the other. Here in Oklahoma, MOST of our tag fees go into the Education system, not roads or highway maintenance. I b*tch about it several times every year.


The idea is that the system must have some degree of negative feedback. There is far too much positive feedback in it as it is currently constituted.

[hanelyp]

We are not going to re-design our current system of government. I perceive that we have allowed design flaws to creep into it, and it is now slowly (but with increasing rapidity) going to wreck itself.

We're not likely to get major design reform before the system crashes and burns. Maybe after, depending on who gets organized first and takes charge.

[Diogenes]

We are not going to re-design our current system of government. I perceive that we have allowed design flaws to creep into it, and it is now slowly (but with increasing rapidity) going to wreck itself.

We're not likely to get major design reform before the system crashes and burns. Maybe after, depending on who gets organized first and takes charge.

A breakup of the US into regional autonomous districts would be the best outcome in my estimation, but There is another possibility that worries me the most. Dictatorship.

The power currently held by the US government gets used to establish a soviet style authoritarian government, and they end up solving the problem of too little money by killing all the dissidents, meaning the productive members of society who don't want to contribute to a soviet slave state.

When a financial collapse occurs, the existing government can declare martial law and start implementing Socialist collectivization by decree. All those opposed can be shot or starved to death as occurred in the Ukraine.

[kcdodd]

Are you familiar with Smedley Butler?

[MSimon]

We are not going to re-design our current system of government. I perceive that we have allowed design flaws to creep into it, and it is now slowly (but with increasing rapidity) going to wreck itself.

We're not likely to get major design reform before the system crashes and burns. Maybe after, depending on who gets organized first and takes charge.

Until we get over our addiction to laws as a universal problem solving tool there is no hope.

The 2nd Amendment is not nearly restrictive enough. The founders should have stopped at Congress shall make no law.

[Diogenes]

Are you familiar with Smedley Butler?

No I'm not. Thanks for putting me onto that bit of history.