As for your argument about a change in the "economics of wages" due to no federal income tax, YES i think the dynamics would change. I think you would see your wages go UP. What the hell exactly do YOU think would happen?
That was the point I was making, that the dynamics would change and you said you did not understand. As for wages going up.........are you sure about that? Is your thinking that the wages would go up because corporations would have extra money on their hands? Why should they have to or want to fork out more for worker wages?
By the way, you sound hostile, no need to be. We are simply exchanging ideas and we can agree to disagree.
As far as all your other musings about protecting the individual from corporations and such. Fuck yeah i think it is a government perogative ... a LOCAL government perogative.
What is your fascination with the FEDERAL government.
What was the last big thing they got right?
Because almost everything they touch goes bankrupt, has serious operating issues, or remains horrible at what it is supposed to do.
They got involved in housing 20 years ago, LOOK AT WHAT IS HAPPENING.
They are supposed to "prevent inflation" (when in reality they are CAUSING IT), look at the dollar.
They are looking after your children by educating them, look how stupid most products of that system are.
They are protecting us in retirement.
Do YOU think YOU will see any SS benefits?
I know I wont!
Look, I have stated this before, but anti-government sentiments resonate with all of us. There's something about the government to offend everyone from massive defense spending to inept welfare programs. Does this mean we through the baby out with the bath water or try to reform? If government is so bad, why not do away with it entirely? Why not have no government at all. I don't think Somalia has a central gov't...... That works pretty well, doesn't it?
As far as 'what has the federal gov't ever done' and heading back to this deregulated, laissez-faire capitalism, we need to only look to 19th century America. We tried that route and it was a disaster, racism, company towns, union-busting goons, monopolies, corruption scandals, a punishing business cycle, old folks living in poverty, etc. And guess who provided the solution to these problems, Government. Food and regulation, labor laws, etc. Going back to laissez-faire capitalism is like Russia going back to communism, imo. So I turn your question back on you......why do you want to return back to 19th century America? How would it be different?
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Hrm... The Federal government has no business in education that is for damn sure. If you think they do a good job of it you might want to look at the statistics... In one survey that took place to obtain samples of how each country stacked up the US was not even considered within the results of reading because the facilitators did not read the directions and they had to throw the results out.
Absolutely the most suicidal plank of the conservative & libertarian platform is its disdain for public education. Throw away Americans' educational levels and you throw away America's future prosperity, imo.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Absolutely the most suicidal plank of the conservative & libertarian platform is its disdain for public education. Throw away Americans' educational levels and you throw away America's future prosperity, imo.
Disdain for federal control of education doesn't mean that it cannot be state or county managed. Look at the education system the way it is now, it is a failure. Our future and prosperity is at risk with the system we have now.
The government owns me? Maybe "of the citizens" would be a better use of words.
As far as protecting my life and property I can do a fine job of that.
Ok, so let's say you found out through illness or whatever that a local company was poisoning yours and your neighborhood's drinking water. What would be your recourse?
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Disdain for federal control of education doesn't mean that it cannot be state or county managed. Look at the education system the way it is now, it is a failure. Our future and prosperity is at risk with the system we have now.
I agree there is work to be done as for as public education is concerned. I'm just not so sure complete privatization is in order, not confident the free market can work this one out. There is no precedent for it. I fear there would be less opportunities for poor children to have access to education and this is usually their only ticket out of poverty. An educated society is a more successful society, imo.
I also have concerns for state managed education when it comes to benchmarks and curriculum. For example, there has been issues in my state as for as what is taught as science. I think you know where I'm going with this.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Ok, so let's say you found out through illness or whatever that a local company was poisoning yours and your neighborhood's drinking water. What would be your recourse?
I would stop drinking the water and find another source. And maybe poison the people in charge down there with a pit full of rattlesnakes.
I agree there is work to be done as for as public education is concerned. I'm just not so sure complete privatization is in order, not confident the free market can work this one out. There is no precedent for it. I fear there would be less opportunities for poor children to have access to education and this is usually their only ticket out of poverty. An educated society is a more successful society, imo.
I also have concerns for state managed education when it comes to benchmarks and curriculum. For example, there has been issues in my state as for as what is taught as science. I think you know where I'm going with this.
An educated society is more successful no doubt, but what accounts for the failure of the current system? Big bureaucracy and government!
What makes you think that education would be completely privatized? The point is that the federal government has no business in education, but the states still very much has a stake in the process. If you enable people to have more than a few options in educating their children, then people will choose the best and only the best option will viable long term.
I also have concerns for state managed education when it comes to benchmarks and curriculum. For example, there has been issues in my state as for as what is taught as science. I think you know where I'm going with this.
Don't be afraid of questioning what is taught in your state schools. The thing that makes this situation desirable, even though you dont' agree with the teaching, is that you CAN have effect on state matters of education.
An educated society is more successful no doubt, but what accounts for the failure of the current system? Big bureaucracy and government!
What makes you think that education would be completely privatized? The point is that the federal government has no business in education, but the states still very much has a stake in the process. If you enable people to have more than a few options in educating their children, then people will choose the best and only the best option will viable long term.
Options? Are you talking vouchers? So you would propose turning over public education to the states? How are you so sure they would do a better job?
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Options? Are you talking vouchers? So you would propose turning over public education to the states? How are you so sure they would do a better job?
Couldn't do a worse job? And I have much more political power to affect state policy than I do to affect federal policy, so accountibility plays a bigger role in the job they would do.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Couldn't do a worse job? And I have much more political power to affect state policy than I do to affect federal policy, so accountibility plays a bigger role in the job they would do.
Ok, it seems that the state already has a BIG hand in this.
In the USA and Canada, elementary or secondary school supported and administered by state and local officials.
United States
Main article: Education in the United States
Public-school education in the United States is provided mainly by local governments, with control and funding coming from three levels: federal, state, and local. Curricula, funding, teaching, and other policies are set through locally elected school boards by jurisdiction over school districts. The school districts are special-purpose districts authorized by provisions of state law. Generally, state governments can and most, if not all, do set minimum standards relating to almost all activities of primary and secondary schools, as well as funding and authorization to enact local school taxes to support the schools -- primarily through real property taxes. The federal government funds aid to states and school districts that meet minimum federal standards. School accreditation decisions are made by voluntary regional associations. The first tax-supported public school in America was in Dedham.
So you are cool with paying state taxes to support public schools?
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
The federal government funds aid to states and school districts that meet minimum federal standards.
Thats the problem right there.
This is like where New Orleans didn't get Federal road funding for decades, because they refused to meet minimum Federal "standards" regarding the legal drinking age.
Federal "standards" can be anything the Federal goernment wants to mandate your child learns or knows, and it is big brother controling what gets taught to your kids, without any real say by you.
Thumbs down to that
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Thats the problem right there.
This is like where New Orleans didn't get Federal road funding for decades, because they refused to meet minimum Federal "standards" regarding the legal drinking age.
Federal "standards" can be anything the Federal goernment wants to mandate your child learns or knows, and it is big brother controling what gets taught to your kids, without any real say by you.
Thumbs down to that
How is that different than allowing the state to dictate what is taught or not taught? Earlier, I expressed concern for my state as it pertains to what is considered science. If my state had its way, creationism would be taught instead of evolution. So you do not think there should be any standards? Or should the standards be dictated by the state level only?
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
How is that different than allowing the state to dictate what is taught or not taught? Earlier, I expressed concern for my state as it pertains to what is considered science. If my state had its way, creationism would be taught instead of evolution. So you do not think there should be any standards? Or should the standards be dictated by the state level only?
Seriously, you could always move out of your state in protest, or raise a ruccous through marches and letter writting and local media.
Lets look at it in reverse,
what if that same issue you take odds with gets pushed through FEDERAL legislation,
what are you going to do when the Federal government tells you to study creationism?
You can laugh and say that will never happen.
But look at "abstinence only education", you wouldn't think the Federal government would be dumb enough to push that bullshit on kids, but it sure has tried, and won.
?
:(
Sometimes you have to just be willing to accept that what works isn't always perfect, but that at least fundamentaly, there is recourse.
With the Federal government your recourse approaches zero.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Sometimes you have to just be willing to accept that what works isn't always perfect, but that at least fundamentaly, there is recourse.
With the Federal government your recourse approaches zero.
I agree with the first statement here, but it's how I feel about the gov't. The libertarians are not the first to feel outrage over government waste, bureaucracy, injustice, etc. The rest of us know they exist and we work politically to affect change.
I would argue that with privatization and corporations your recourse approaches zero.
Oh, and I like my state, my little niche is quite liberal and progressive (college town). That's like me telling you to leave the country if you disagree with taxes
Have a good night Drifting.......
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
doesn't it occur to anyone that thinks that they shouldn't have to pay taxes towards public education that depending on the State and the school district the per child cost per year are anywhere from 6,000 to 12,000 per year? and for special needs kids the cost are even higher? I mean sure there's alot of problems that need addressing; like the need to cut administrators salaries and increase teacher salaries, but that's not even the point. so where they get this idea that all parents can fork over the needed funds for each child's education is pure fantasy. as for the parents that want and can afford a private education for their kid, well they're already do.
I think alot of RP supporters have a very myopic view that if He's elected it'll mean "less taxes for Me! I don't have to care about anyone else, and the far-reaching effects of his policies on the rest of soceity. it's all about what's in it for ME!"
If it is the legitimate function of government to protect the lives, liberties and property of its citizens ( a libertarian staple), then isn't it clearly the function of government to regulate the activities of private individuals and corporations that threaten the lives, liberties and property of others?
Anyone, regardless of the political flag they choose to fly, must have an answer to the above question, and their answer should stem directly from the core principles they hold regaring human rights and the appropriate forms and functions of government. Furthermore, this question is quite pertinent to a discussion about Ron Paul, his popularity as a fringe candidate during this election cycle, and what that popularity says about America's economic and political values, particularly amongst the young.
It's quite sad to see this important question going largely unanswered in this thread, particularly by those who are offering a alternative vision for the structure of American governance. There is absolutely no shame in suggesting that government itself need not be responsible for protecting the rights of men, as alternative structures certainly are available and the underlying foundations of modern nation-states arguably preclude protection of those rights. However, to suggest that a social structure absent the state will magically resolve all issues related to interpersonal conflict and the violations of human rights is the height of foolishness.
Libertarians, anarchists, Constitutionalists, anti-state Republicans and any other advocate for a small, non-invasive state have a host of philosophical and practical arguments from which they can choose to support their positions. However, I am saddened to see so many people simply ignoring or even contradicting those buttresses while making slanderous remarks against the state and those who support state structures. As a life-long advocate for the dismantling of the American political machine, I've always prided myself in being part of a small group largely comprised of deliberate and principled thinkers. While I've been excited to see a person like Ron Paul bring these issues to such heights, I've also been quite saddened by those who have embraced his positions while ignoring the principles from which they stem.
There is no shame and no guilt in calmly telling anyone in this society that they do not own you and they have no authority to rule you. However, there is much shame and guilt in doing so without understanding why. Without understanding the rights of men, and the appropriate means for defending those rights, you will invariably, as so many have done before you, end up violating the rights of many.
I'd encourage everyone here to reconsider baraka's question and take a stab at a response.
If it is the legitimate function of government to protect the lives, liberties and property of its citizens ( a libertarian staple), then isn't it clearly the function of government to regulate the activities of private individuals and corporations that threaten the lives, liberties and property of others?
Any government, by its very nature, represents a form of "agreement" between men to sacrifice certain applications of their natural rights. That "agreement" can be coerced and forced (as in the case of a despotic regime), or it can be mutual (as in the case of a theoretically democratic regime) and therefore consistent with the actual definition of agreement. The measure of actual agreement giving legitimacy to any government will be inversely related to the amount of coercion and force employed by that government against its own people. In other words, the more laws and guns required by the state, the less actual agreement there is amongst the citizenry regarding the constitution of that state. Furthermore, that agreement can be logically sound (consistent), or it can be crippled by contradictions and subjectivity.
If individuals in society believe in the rights of life, liberty, and property, they are free to manufacture those rights by forming a government and criminalizing murder, despotism, and theft. Each member of that society can forgo their natural right to kill, to oppress, and to steal, and it would be very appropriate to use the structure of government to monitor the actions of each member of society in order to assess compliance with that agreement. However, no matter the structure of government, one cannot uphold life by killing, cannot uphold liberty by oppressing, and cannot uphold property by stealing. Furthermore, one cannot manufacture contradictory rights. One cannot have both the right to pollute and the right to live. One cannot have both the right to free enterprise and the right to own slaves. One cannot have both the right to privacy and the right to knowing everything about their neighbors. One cannot have the right to healthcare provided by others and the right to own their labor. The list of both theoretical and applied contradictions is quite long.
So, to answer your question more succinctly: the amount of regulation that must be employed by the state will be inversely related to the consistency of the population's values with the state's and, therefore, inversely related to the actual legitimacy of the state itself. Furthermore, the amount of regulation that must be employed by the state against actions the state is also guilty of, the more hypocritical and corrupt the state and therefore the more likely it is to violate the trust and rights of its citizens in the name of maintaining its power.
I just saw poll numbers on NBC from Iowa and New Hampshire and Paul didn't place in the top 4. Huckabee was leading Iowa and Romney was leading NH.
Seriously, if these polls are way wrong, why does everyone report them the same? I still have yet to see one good thing about Ron Paul on TV.
Only those that follow international politics have any idea what's going on. The rest line up to choose candidates like menu items at McDonalds. It''s pretty sad.
So many vote like picking jellybean colors in a dish...just about as much thought goes into it for them. That's why the polls show the way they do.
Unaware. Uninformed.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Excuse me for being in the dark. I consider myself somewhat political. However I haven't been paying *much* attention to this election yet. I am registered Democrat but consider myself an Independent. I haven't really looked into all of Election '08 yet so..
My question(s). Why has Ron Paul become the new "internet fad" (I use that term loosely)?
Every where I look, it's Ron Paul this, and Ron Paul that. I know he vying for the Republican nomination.. and I could be VERY wrong here, but I would think most PJ fans (US fans of course), consider themselves more on the liberal side. And I see a lot of Ron Paul stuff on the net (and everywhere in this forum), but most major networks seem to just write him off, at least from what I've seen.
So again, why are a lot of people, especially a lot of Democrats, in favor of Ron Paul? Is he the lesser of all evils? Are his proposed policies more liberal than his fellow Republican candidates?
If so, why not run Democrat? What makes him Republican?
I watched a good bit of the YouTube.com debate a week or so ago, and nothing really jumped out at me about this guy.
Can anyone give me a run down?
not a huge deal most of these people never leave their house so they miss voting day. all talk until it actually comes down to doing something this is ron pauls legacy.
not a huge deal most of these people never leave their house so they miss voting day. all talk until it actually comes down to doing something this is ron pauls legacy.
WOW!!! I am floored by your astute observation and in depth political analysis of Ron Paul supporters. Nevermind the fact that Paul's supports have been campaigning across the country en mass. You managed to cast aside all facts and produced this jewel of a statement. Look out Tim Russert, macgyver06 is a natural. This is the future of our country here ladies and gents.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
WOW!!! I am floored by your astute observation and in depth political analysis of Ron Paul supporters. Nevermind the fact that Paul's supports have been campaigning across the country en mass. You managed to cast aside all facts and produced this jewel of a statement. Look out Tim Russert, macgyver06 is a natural. This is the future of our country here ladies and gents.
Exactly and look at how much Ron Paul supporters have done. They have mobilized en mass to drum up support for their candidate. You can say what you want about Ron Paul's ideals and his policies but the fact remains that he is one of the most honest politicians in this race and his supporters are active in every which way possible in order to get him noticed and to drum up support. You can't argue those facts.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
What i'm getting from all this is, it sounds like you believe that MOST people who have children actualy can NOT afford to pay for their education.
That must mean you also belive that there are a very few in this country who can and SHOULD be forced to pay for the education of the masses.
(which, by the way, is a complete fallacy. the people really paying are those not born yet. and all of us in terms of dollar devaluation)
On the flip side, when asked if a family should be expected to understand the TRUE cost of raising a child and budget for that expense, you say "NO" and "Let those who CAN afford it pay for other peoples education, because it fundamentaly benefits them".
Taking that logic, we should pay for every junkie on the street to get clean, every homeless person in america to get a house, every poor person in our town to have a meal for the evening, and every old person to get their medical care?
Sure, there are plenty of things that "benefit" me ... but there is no fucking free lunch, and when people think there is, they are provided no motivation to go out and find a lunch that is within their budget.
Don't you people understand that fundamental fallacy in logic?
Sure it is a problem today, but we should be looking for REAL solutions that phase out the problem, NOT ENCOURAGE IT.
Continuing to subisidize childhood education only ENCOURAGES people to have babies WITHOUT accounting for that childs very real expenses.
Also, you should know that most of that education is not paid for with current taxes, it's paid for in bonds and long term notes ...
that IS a "tax", just not on you an me ... it's a tax on those same children you just said you were helping ... but instead you are birthing them in to a world of future debt ...
and the way you folks want it you want an ever increasing number of those children (since no one has any reason to NOT have them) and you want them to be buried not only in the future tax debt of their own education ... but that of millions of other "unfortunate" childrens ALONG with the huge debt of the social security needs of their parents and grandparents (who just shlepped the cost on to them, thinking it was their civic duty to pay for it) and the cost of their neighbors welfare, etc etc etc.
It's not me being cruel.
Its you who do not understand that their IS NO FREE LUNCH, and that by not DISCOURAGING such thought, you are inherently ENCOURAGING it, and such 'logic' fundamentaly perverts the market, the system, and society in general.
When people do not feel personaly restrained in their lifestyle choices by the real need to budget for themselves and their family, watch out! The end result will be poverty for EVERYONE.
Why?
Because if THEY aren't paying for it, we ALL are paying for it ... and while it sounds good on paper ... you are basicaly saying MOST people can't afford it, so we should distribute that burden on to everyone ... but guess what ... you just said it, MOST people CAN NOT afford it.
So, at the end of the day, what can't be afforded CAN NOT be afforded. It has to stop.
And i take exception to you saying something like "administrative costs have to come down but that is not the point" ... um, that IS the point. Government services are always INFLATED. Go ask Rudy Giuliani why New York was going bankrupt when he took office. It was because the city was handing out welfare and free lunches all over town, and the subidized wages of city employees was often 25-75% HIGHER than market wages! Guess who paid for that mistake? EVERYONE!
[edit: BTW, Roland is right. If you got rid of the Fed, the pyramid scheme imbalance of the 1% having 35% of the wealth, with 90% having less than the 1% would begin to reverse, and rapidly. That would put more people in a position to afford the education you claim they cant be burdened with. You just aren't looking at all the pieces of the puzzle. It is YOU who are being myopic.]
you seem to believe that all people on welfare are living it up and loving it. secondly, there are people out there that live very tight every month to get the basics like food and rent.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
Comments
That was the point I was making, that the dynamics would change and you said you did not understand. As for wages going up.........are you sure about that? Is your thinking that the wages would go up because corporations would have extra money on their hands? Why should they have to or want to fork out more for worker wages?
By the way, you sound hostile, no need to be. We are simply exchanging ideas and we can agree to disagree.
Look, I have stated this before, but anti-government sentiments resonate with all of us. There's something about the government to offend everyone from massive defense spending to inept welfare programs. Does this mean we through the baby out with the bath water or try to reform? If government is so bad, why not do away with it entirely? Why not have no government at all. I don't think Somalia has a central gov't...... That works pretty well, doesn't it?
As far as 'what has the federal gov't ever done' and heading back to this deregulated, laissez-faire capitalism, we need to only look to 19th century America. We tried that route and it was a disaster, racism, company towns, union-busting goons, monopolies, corruption scandals, a punishing business cycle, old folks living in poverty, etc. And guess who provided the solution to these problems, Government. Food and regulation, labor laws, etc. Going back to laissez-faire capitalism is like Russia going back to communism, imo. So I turn your question back on you......why do you want to return back to 19th century America? How would it be different?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Absolutely the most suicidal plank of the conservative & libertarian platform is its disdain for public education. Throw away Americans' educational levels and you throw away America's future prosperity, imo.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
So you don't believe that a function of government is to protect the lives, liberties and property of its citizens?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
The government owns me? Maybe "of the citizens" would be a better use of words.
As far as protecting my life and property I can do a fine job of that.
You got to spend it all
Disdain for federal control of education doesn't mean that it cannot be state or county managed. Look at the education system the way it is now, it is a failure. Our future and prosperity is at risk with the system we have now.
You got to spend it all
Ok, so let's say you found out through illness or whatever that a local company was poisoning yours and your neighborhood's drinking water. What would be your recourse?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I agree there is work to be done as for as public education is concerned. I'm just not so sure complete privatization is in order, not confident the free market can work this one out. There is no precedent for it. I fear there would be less opportunities for poor children to have access to education and this is usually their only ticket out of poverty. An educated society is a more successful society, imo.
I also have concerns for state managed education when it comes to benchmarks and curriculum. For example, there has been issues in my state as for as what is taught as science. I think you know where I'm going with this.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I would stop drinking the water and find another source. And maybe poison the people in charge down there with a pit full of rattlesnakes.
You got to spend it all
An educated society is more successful no doubt, but what accounts for the failure of the current system? Big bureaucracy and government!
What makes you think that education would be completely privatized? The point is that the federal government has no business in education, but the states still very much has a stake in the process. If you enable people to have more than a few options in educating their children, then people will choose the best and only the best option will viable long term.
You got to spend it all
Don't be afraid of questioning what is taught in your state schools. The thing that makes this situation desirable, even though you dont' agree with the teaching, is that you CAN have effect on state matters of education.
You got to spend it all
Ha ha, I was anticipating a lawsuit response or something. Not sure how to respond to the rattlesnake tactic. Good luck with all that!
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Options? Are you talking vouchers? So you would propose turning over public education to the states? How are you so sure they would do a better job?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Couldn't do a worse job? And I have much more political power to affect state policy than I do to affect federal policy, so accountibility plays a bigger role in the job they would do.
You got to spend it all
Dec 16th is poised to set a world record.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p774eENRP_4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6I5zYu541Q
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Ok, it seems that the state already has a BIG hand in this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_school
In the USA and Canada, elementary or secondary school supported and administered by state and local officials.
United States
Main article: Education in the United States
Public-school education in the United States is provided mainly by local governments, with control and funding coming from three levels: federal, state, and local. Curricula, funding, teaching, and other policies are set through locally elected school boards by jurisdiction over school districts. The school districts are special-purpose districts authorized by provisions of state law. Generally, state governments can and most, if not all, do set minimum standards relating to almost all activities of primary and secondary schools, as well as funding and authorization to enact local school taxes to support the schools -- primarily through real property taxes. The federal government funds aid to states and school districts that meet minimum federal standards. School accreditation decisions are made by voluntary regional associations. The first tax-supported public school in America was in Dedham.
So you are cool with paying state taxes to support public schools?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Thats the problem right there.
This is like where New Orleans didn't get Federal road funding for decades, because they refused to meet minimum Federal "standards" regarding the legal drinking age.
Federal "standards" can be anything the Federal goernment wants to mandate your child learns or knows, and it is big brother controling what gets taught to your kids, without any real say by you.
Thumbs down to that
If I opened it now would you not understand?
How is that different than allowing the state to dictate what is taught or not taught? Earlier, I expressed concern for my state as it pertains to what is considered science. If my state had its way, creationism would be taught instead of evolution. So you do not think there should be any standards? Or should the standards be dictated by the state level only?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Seriously, you could always move out of your state in protest, or raise a ruccous through marches and letter writting and local media.
Lets look at it in reverse,
what if that same issue you take odds with gets pushed through FEDERAL legislation,
what are you going to do when the Federal government tells you to study creationism?
You can laugh and say that will never happen.
But look at "abstinence only education", you wouldn't think the Federal government would be dumb enough to push that bullshit on kids, but it sure has tried, and won.
?
:(
Sometimes you have to just be willing to accept that what works isn't always perfect, but that at least fundamentaly, there is recourse.
With the Federal government your recourse approaches zero.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I agree with the first statement here, but it's how I feel about the gov't. The libertarians are not the first to feel outrage over government waste, bureaucracy, injustice, etc. The rest of us know they exist and we work politically to affect change.
I would argue that with privatization and corporations your recourse approaches zero.
Oh, and I like my state, my little niche is quite liberal and progressive (college town). That's like me telling you to leave the country if you disagree with taxes
Have a good night Drifting.......
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Hehe...do you see the irony here?
Anyone, regardless of the political flag they choose to fly, must have an answer to the above question, and their answer should stem directly from the core principles they hold regaring human rights and the appropriate forms and functions of government. Furthermore, this question is quite pertinent to a discussion about Ron Paul, his popularity as a fringe candidate during this election cycle, and what that popularity says about America's economic and political values, particularly amongst the young.
It's quite sad to see this important question going largely unanswered in this thread, particularly by those who are offering a alternative vision for the structure of American governance. There is absolutely no shame in suggesting that government itself need not be responsible for protecting the rights of men, as alternative structures certainly are available and the underlying foundations of modern nation-states arguably preclude protection of those rights. However, to suggest that a social structure absent the state will magically resolve all issues related to interpersonal conflict and the violations of human rights is the height of foolishness.
Libertarians, anarchists, Constitutionalists, anti-state Republicans and any other advocate for a small, non-invasive state have a host of philosophical and practical arguments from which they can choose to support their positions. However, I am saddened to see so many people simply ignoring or even contradicting those buttresses while making slanderous remarks against the state and those who support state structures. As a life-long advocate for the dismantling of the American political machine, I've always prided myself in being part of a small group largely comprised of deliberate and principled thinkers. While I've been excited to see a person like Ron Paul bring these issues to such heights, I've also been quite saddened by those who have embraced his positions while ignoring the principles from which they stem.
There is no shame and no guilt in calmly telling anyone in this society that they do not own you and they have no authority to rule you. However, there is much shame and guilt in doing so without understanding why. Without understanding the rights of men, and the appropriate means for defending those rights, you will invariably, as so many have done before you, end up violating the rights of many.
I'd encourage everyone here to reconsider baraka's question and take a stab at a response.
Any government, by its very nature, represents a form of "agreement" between men to sacrifice certain applications of their natural rights. That "agreement" can be coerced and forced (as in the case of a despotic regime), or it can be mutual (as in the case of a theoretically democratic regime) and therefore consistent with the actual definition of agreement. The measure of actual agreement giving legitimacy to any government will be inversely related to the amount of coercion and force employed by that government against its own people. In other words, the more laws and guns required by the state, the less actual agreement there is amongst the citizenry regarding the constitution of that state. Furthermore, that agreement can be logically sound (consistent), or it can be crippled by contradictions and subjectivity.
If individuals in society believe in the rights of life, liberty, and property, they are free to manufacture those rights by forming a government and criminalizing murder, despotism, and theft. Each member of that society can forgo their natural right to kill, to oppress, and to steal, and it would be very appropriate to use the structure of government to monitor the actions of each member of society in order to assess compliance with that agreement. However, no matter the structure of government, one cannot uphold life by killing, cannot uphold liberty by oppressing, and cannot uphold property by stealing. Furthermore, one cannot manufacture contradictory rights. One cannot have both the right to pollute and the right to live. One cannot have both the right to free enterprise and the right to own slaves. One cannot have both the right to privacy and the right to knowing everything about their neighbors. One cannot have the right to healthcare provided by others and the right to own their labor. The list of both theoretical and applied contradictions is quite long.
So, to answer your question more succinctly: the amount of regulation that must be employed by the state will be inversely related to the consistency of the population's values with the state's and, therefore, inversely related to the actual legitimacy of the state itself. Furthermore, the amount of regulation that must be employed by the state against actions the state is also guilty of, the more hypocritical and corrupt the state and therefore the more likely it is to violate the trust and rights of its citizens in the name of maintaining its power.
Seriously, if these polls are way wrong, why does everyone report them the same? I still have yet to see one good thing about Ron Paul on TV.
Only those that follow international politics have any idea what's going on. The rest line up to choose candidates like menu items at McDonalds. It''s pretty sad.
Unfortunately the learning curve is steep.
Here's a rather succinct and accurate article:
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/the-conspiracy-continues-the-democrats-and-war-funding/
So many vote like picking jellybean colors in a dish...just about as much thought goes into it for them. That's why the polls show the way they do.
Unaware. Uninformed.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
TV isnt the real place to get accurate information, and unfortunately the majority of the general public depends on it.
Try going to http://www.ronpaulforpresident2008.com or read/join the forums at http://www.ronpaulforums.com and you will find links to dozens if not hundreds of excellent articles that outline Paul's policies, and how he DOES in fact have a chance to win.
Or also you can try here: http://thecaseforronpaul.com/default.aspx
http://www.ronpaulforums.com
not a huge deal most of these people never leave their house so they miss voting day. all talk until it actually comes down to doing something this is ron pauls legacy.
WOW!!! I am floored by your astute observation and in depth political analysis of Ron Paul supporters. Nevermind the fact that Paul's supports have been campaigning across the country en mass. You managed to cast aside all facts and produced this jewel of a statement. Look out Tim Russert, macgyver06 is a natural. This is the future of our country here ladies and gents.
actions speak louder than words
Exactly and look at how much Ron Paul supporters have done. They have mobilized en mass to drum up support for their candidate. You can say what you want about Ron Paul's ideals and his policies but the fact remains that he is one of the most honest politicians in this race and his supporters are active in every which way possible in order to get him noticed and to drum up support. You can't argue those facts.
you seem to believe that all people on welfare are living it up and loving it. secondly, there are people out there that live very tight every month to get the basics like food and rent.
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)