"The constitution has failed" - Ron Paul delivers farewell speech to Congress, freedom
316 replies, posted
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38485933]I don't have a webcam so you'll have to go by ear.
[editline]17th November 2012[/editline]
Yes I am completely sure.
The easiest way to make sense of "governments" is to see them as corporations under a different garb. They own a chunk of the Earth's surface and thus charge various rents for the people living on that landmass (taxes). They are a persistent entity (the civil service) with a CEO (head of state/government). The two main differences between a traditional corporation and a sovereign corporation is that the latter traditionally goes under a different name, and is managed terribly in comparison to the former.[/QUOTE]
what a stupid way to look at things. governments in the first world are run democratically, whereas corporations are anything BUT democratic. and to say they're managed terribly is retarded, governments run on the basis of that their first and foremost priority should be increasing the quality of life for their citizens, whereas for corporations it's just MAXIMIZE PROFITS.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;38486000]what a stupid way to look at things. governments in the first world are run democratically, whereas corporations are anything BUT democratic. and to say they're managed terribly is retarded, governments run on the basis of that their first and foremost priority should be increasing the quality of life for their citizens, whereas for corporations it's just MAXIMIZE PROFITS.[/QUOTE]
Governments are managed terribly [I]because[/I] they are democratic.
Or at least, they profess at being democratic, which we all know is a lie. We should be thankful that governments don't actually make good on their promises of democracy because that would make things even worse.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38486045]We should be thankful that governments don't actually make good on their promises of democracy because that would make things even worse.[/QUOTE]
Well... no.
Sure, [URL="http://www.econ.boun.edu.tr/zobuz/teaching/EC352/besley_coate%281%29.pdf"]democracies are inefficient.[/URL] But that might be because they're [URL="http://www.citi.columbia.edu/elinoam/articles/Efficiency_of_Direct_Democracy.pdf"]not democratic enough.[/URL]
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38485933]I don't have a webcam so you'll have to go by ear.
[editline]17th November 2012[/editline]
Yes I am completely sure.
The easiest way to make sense of "governments" is to see them as corporations under a different garb. They own a chunk of the Earth's surface and thus charge various rents for the people living on that landmass (taxes). They are a persistent entity (the civil service) with a CEO (head of state/government). The two main differences between a traditional corporation and a sovereign corporation is that the latter traditionally goes under a different name, and is managed terribly in comparison to the former.[/QUOTE]
the reason 'traditional corporations' perform so efficiently is because they evade taxes, operate in extreme self interest and distance themselves from the common man. sure, it might seem like governments are like that at times but i'd take cameron running the UK over the UK being a subsidiary of goldman sachs any day
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;38493193]Well... no.
Sure, [URL="http://www.econ.boun.edu.tr/zobuz/teaching/EC352/besley_coate%281%29.pdf"]democracies are inefficient.[/URL] But that might be because they're [URL="http://www.citi.columbia.edu/elinoam/articles/Efficiency_of_Direct_Democracy.pdf"]not democratic enough.[/URL][/QUOTE]
My argument isn't about its efficiency. It's about the very core idea.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;38493193]Well... no.
Sure, [URL="http://www.econ.boun.edu.tr/zobuz/teaching/EC352/besley_coate%281%29.pdf"]democracies are inefficient.[/URL] But that might be because they're [URL="http://www.citi.columbia.edu/elinoam/articles/Efficiency_of_Direct_Democracy.pdf"]not democratic enough.[/URL][/QUOTE]
The problem with direct democracy is we are basically throwing the rights of the minority out of a window.
Ron Paul lost because he has like ten fanboys and they're too young to vote.
[QUOTE=ycap5;38462049]This is how the world ends.[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPwO8RVUqf0[/media]
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;38477803]
Think about what you just said for five seconds. Are you going to seriously tell me the U.S. military cannot "flex" better now than it did in the 60s, despite being about 56% of its previous size?
You can make any point you want about there not being enough guys in the right fields, but saying "the US government is smaller, and as such can't do its job properly anymore" isn't even wrong. There's no absolute that as government employment increases, government efficacy increases, and there are examples of efficacy increasing as employment decreases, so an argument that the government overreaches with fewer people is completely plausible.[/QUOTE]
I was more talking about the Domestic Branches of the Federal. The military is much larger than it used to be, for sure.
[editline]18th November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;38493193]Well... no.
Sure, [URL="http://www.econ.boun.edu.tr/zobuz/teaching/EC352/besley_coate%281%29.pdf"]democracies are inefficient.[/URL] But that might be because they're [URL="http://www.citi.columbia.edu/elinoam/articles/Efficiency_of_Direct_Democracy.pdf"]not democratic enough.[/URL][/QUOTE]
That's still an argued topic right now, I don't agree because what people don't realize that adding more of something that's already there doesn't make it better.
The United States, we have a lot of elections, we elect County, State, Federal appointed represenatives. We elect our judges(Stupid idea), we elect our school boards.
In all, we have a shit load of elections. We have more democracy and nobody really cares.
Also, the original purpose of Democracies is to give people their voice, if you suddenly want to speed things up because you're impatient? Well then don't be in a democracy. This race to the finish line in repsonse to something is what leads to horrible bills like the NDAA, SOPA, PIPA and Patriotic Act. The NPVC.
We need to slow down as a whole honestly, the speed we're moving at is unsustainable.
[QUOTE=Swilly;38500983]We need to slow down as a whole honestly, the speed we're moving at is unsustainable.[/QUOTE]
What happens if one goes too fast?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38501666]What happens if one goes too fast?[/QUOTE]
I'm talking globally. We're growing and consuming resources at a pace that we cannot sustain.
In first world nations, we've grown this apatite of everything going fast, instant gratification. It needs to stop, informed discussion has gone out the window. Decisions are made on the fly, and they get people hurt, their lives destroyed or even killed.
Its also stemming from this individualist movement that has occurred because of Globalization.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_iwrt7D5OA[/media]
Globalization has already been occurring for the past few centuries, it's just sharply accelerated in the wake of the industrial revolution and formation of various supranational organisations.
[QUOTE=Swilly;38501776]everything going fast, instant gratification[/QUOTE]
That's a good thing though.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38502080]Globalization has already been occurring for the past few centuries, it's just sharply accelerated in the wake of the industrial revolution and formation of various supranational organisations.[/QUOTE]
It was sped up dramatically when instead of several months and being a risky venture, shipping across oceans became several weeks and much safer. The internet now makes it possible for people to move where ever they want and stay in contact with people or meet new people. Global business has become much faster, and as such, everything has started moving faster with the rise of the Corporation.
I'm not saying that globalization is a horrible practice and should end, its lead to a lot of good events that have taken place. But as the video I posted as a minor reference stated, we are not the future, we can say its great and fantastic because we've benefited from a net positive. What will tell those starving children in Africa? Was it a net positive for them?
We cannot use ourselves and how we see our world as thinking the rest of the world is benefiting. Unless the entirety of Humanity is being positively benefited, we cannot say it has been a great event.
We cannot decide what history will decide what we have done is [B]good or bad.[/B] We have to let the future decide that, and we need to make sure that we do everything we can as a species to make sure that future is a good one. We no longer think in a collective system, we think in individual and that is a destructive turn for our livability. We, as a species, are as strong as our weakest.
And our weakest are starving, dying of disease and living in squalor conditions. In worse conditions than those who went through the Industrial revolution which today we would consider squalor and impoverished.
/end rant
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.