Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

Its funny how we're all depending on legislators who haven't been able to balance a check book in decades.

Sad thing about the republicans on this board is they all have pea-sized brains. If only Dooj posted more at least he doesn't drool out arguments like jubber eturnal weena.

Protip: Caps just makes you a self defeating douche. Even if you are correct, nobody listens.

I maybe would have elaborated, but you've clearly demonstrated that it doesn't matter what I say, unless it's in line with what you say.

I'm surprised after the shitbomb that you dropped on us that you got that coherent of a response, btw.

I swear, its like none of you actually realize what the government does for you that makes your lives even remotely livable.

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]

I think Dvergar's 'cruise control for derp' post demonstrates how you can't say anything reasonable if it's in opposition to what some people believe, because instead of hearing what you say, they hear what they want to hear. No one is/was saying we don't need road, schools, etc., but that's what you want to hear, if for no other reason than because it's easy to argue against that. Of course, that's just because 'we're dumb' because we're incapable of realizing how some of you and those who share your thinking know what's best for us more than we do, or because we're too ungrateful and ignorant to appreciate the functions that government legitimately (and yes, sometimes effectively) fills, Mayo.

The more complex questions of "how much is too much," "what level of efficiency should we expect," "can we afford it," "how do we pay for it without trampling anyone's rights," and/or "what are the intangible costs" are ones some of you won't bother with so long as you can set up your straw men or sling mud. I find it very surprising that you never come down from on high and share your views on the deeper parts of the issue, given how you're all so much smarter, wiser, and more enlightened than we are.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

I am drunk and can't really contribute right now.

However, this has been one of the most civil discussions we've had about politics on this board, and i commend you all on that.

No those questions are not valid because it's not because government is "inefficient" that it costs so much.



Not a valid question.

Our government is more limited in scope than any other country in the Western world.



It's not a valid question because it's the product of bias and willful ignorance.

Proof of your bias is that you are operating under the premise that government is more exceptionally inefficient than is inevitable given the nature of the beast. It isn't.

It's a double-standard (because you don't ask these kinds of questions about corporations that run monopolies or oligarchies, or that waste millions on executive compensation etc), and it's a copout because instead of trying to really understand what government is doing and why, you're taking the Ronald Reagan approach of, "I don't understand what you do or why, but here's 20% less money, keep doing it."



American government is by and large highly efficient. The "bureaucracies" you describe are miniscule (they're that teal 12% you see in the upper left) compared to the very few programs which cost so much, and even assuming the bureaucracies were 1000% more efficient than they are now and did their jobs with 1/10th the budget, the difference in the deficient would be marginal.

As you can see, the main costs are Social Security, Medicare and national defense. Social Security and Medicare are largely check-cutting programs and Medicare has lower administrative costs than private healthcare. Defense is really the only part of the budget where efficiency is a real concern and there's no controversy that the defense budget can be cut.

So no your determined insistence that government is unnecessarily expensive due to "waste and inefficiency" is totally off-base.



No this is not a valid question. It is not a valid question because it has been beaten into the ground.

If those who have the capacity to contribute more - and traditionally have - help out a bit more with the maintenance of the country that has done so much for them...yes. There's no mystery here.



Raise taxes on the very wealthy.

It is not a violation of rights that those who enjoy the most should pay the most for its upkeep, in the context that they've never done better nor paid less.

So no...not a valid question.



This only applies to welfare and yes it's a strawman because pretty much everyone agrees the system needs reform because check cutting is bad.

It's asinine to ask about the moral consequences of the scope of government when it's already the narrowest in the world.

And it's hypocritical because you ask this question about others and not yourself or Eturnal and how your lives are "intangible costs" as the beneficiaries of military welfare who are now questioning whether others are being excessively coddled by the state. It does not occur to you that your political/social viewpoint and everything that comes from it qualify as an "intangible cost" according to your own definition.

Talking about the restructuring of welfare vs talking about the overall cost is apples and oranges. Reforming welfare to be an effective force in people's lives might well prove more expensive than check-cutting.

Even if the cost of Social Security were reduced to zero, or it simply stopped paying benefits other than to the retired, there would still be a massive hole in the budget. So no this question is not really valid in the context of a discussion about the deficit.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

The governments job is to protect me from illegitimate force and fraud. In that sense, yes, the government has been a wonderful thing for the most part. The federal government hosts a military, and I've yet to be oppressed by foreign invaders. The state boasts police power that has helped prevent me from being killed, robbed or raped. Force is only good for two things, repelling other force, and imposing itself. When the government uses it's force to repel force, that's a great thing, and what it's designed to do.

A flourishing government is a bad thing. I'm referring to a government with too much power and money (which translates into even more power). The government is the ONLY entity in this country that can force me to do something under threat of punishment. A government with a lot of power, a government doing well, is a bad thing. A private entity doing well, however, is a good thing. Atleast it is a good thing until it is allowed to manipulate the governments power of force. Much regulation comes about from private entities looking to benefit from government force. But that starts to kind of fall out of scope here.

95% of the things government does, could either be done just as well, or better/more efficiently, by private sector markets that benefit from both broader freedom and market discipline. The 5% of things that are done well by the government, should be done by the state (and even local) governments. This doesn't stop at economic things. Marriage would be better left to private contracts. Abortion laws would be better left to the states.

I'd argue that technology and innovation, brought about by people looking to profit and make better lives for themselves (and those not looking to profit as well, but more comes about from profit motive), compared to what the governments have done, are more responsible for why my life is "remotely livable" and living standards are higher. I'd also argue that government tends to be a drag on innovation.

Let's see...

Two most obvious:
-Medical care...provably false because private care has higher admin costs, and other countries have national systems and are doing fine. We have a mostly private system and we are not doing fine.
-Education...provably false because private education is much more expensive and totally out of reach for almost all families, and public education exists because private solutions didn't cut it; before we had universal public education, most people just didn't get educated, and nothing has come to pass that would change that equation.

Other responsibilities of government:
-National defense
-Regulation of financial institutions
-Maintenance of roads and mass transit
-The justice system
-Regulation of the environment, airwaves, pharmaceuticals, food safety, etc
-Copyright and patent law
-Printing of currency

So what makes up that "95%"?



Disenfranchisement and poverty are human problems, and technology simply can't solve human problems.

Thomas Moore's Utopia describes an Iron Age society that is perfectly content and equitable. Everyone has a home and a job and enough to eat. The story is completely plausible and internally consistent; they don't need industrial technology to feed and clothe a civilization.

Meanwhile, here we are in the 21st century and there are still people here in America suffering from medical conditions that were treatable a hundred years ago. Homelessness and poverty are still very real.

In between we've had the Great Depression, and now we have the Chinese economy. Chinese industrial peasants build a technologically advanced world, but they certainly aren't the happiest people in the planet, and there's no reason to believe that GDP increases will change that. They certainly don't live as well as, say, French people during the reign of Napoleon III.

If technology and innovation had the answers - or even most of them - life would be a universal nirvana by now. It's not, because technology, although it can do a lot of things, can't solve human problems, and economic inequity is a human problem. No matter how big technology makes the pie, the problem will always be with the humans who have to cut it.

Take unemployment. If there isn't enough work to go around, how will increasing efficiency or improving technology increase employment?

Or ignorance. The availability of a lot of extremely advanced knowledge hasn't made primary and secondary education any better for many millions than it was a hundred years ago. Arguably, technology has made primary education worse: since computers can do a lot of what used to be done by clerks, there's less incentive for communities to invest in education.

If we reject wealth redistribution as a social principle, then how can material things that other people own improve the lives of people who have nothing at all? How does the technology of gated communities help those who are not so fortunate?

Is technological progress or social improvement a futile endeavour? No - but real improvement in our society isn't something scientists or entrepreneurs can bring about.

Is there any evidence, at all, that technology and innovation really can solve social problems?



Technological progress has been most drastic in the last 200 years, and even more so in the last 50 years. During that time, government has been more powerful than at any point during the other 2800 years or so of human history. The very few cultures that made any progress at all in those 2800 years were - without exception - those with the strongest governments, whether Athens and Rome, or England and Germany.

The power of government and its capacity to stabilize and rationalize human society - protection of property, uplifting the masses, organizing people - has been the driving force for most of what we know as technology.

If the government is a drag on innovation, then why in the 2800 years prior to modern government was there such slow progress?

Or look at countries like Afghanistan or most of the Middle East or Eastern Europe, where, at an individual level, government has basically no role in daily life. Why aren't they rocketing past China, the US and EU in technological progress, when our governments do so much for us? India has one of the most inefficient and onerous governments in the world, and it's not holding them back.

What's the evidence government is a drag on innovation?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

If you think that a successful government is a bad thing (and thus, a failing government is a good thing), why aren't you happy about the current situation that we're in?

EDIT: Keep on saying more blatantly retarded things, thanks.

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]

Successful != Flourishing

A flourishing government is one that grows at retarded fast rates and is successful.

A successful government is one that can do its duties at a reasonable cost without hurting defense, the economy or the people without rapid growth.

See, it's not that we don't take you seriously because we have blinders on - rather it's because we've heard comments like



way too many times from you guys, and there's really only so much stupidity we can take.

[✔] [item]Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker[/item] (Three)
[✔] [item]Sulfuras, Hand of Ragnaros[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]32837[/item] & [item]32838[/item]
[✔] [item]Thori'dal, the Stars' Fury[/item]
[✔] [item]46017[/item]
[✔] [item]49623[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]71086[/item]

EDIT: If you're trying to prove that two words have different meanings, it really doesn't help that you use one of the words in your definition of the other one.

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]

I'm pretty sure he meant that a government that gets too large or grows too quickly is a bad thing. Weena has been clear on his opinion that governments should have such broad powers and reach and that a lot of its function should be handled by the state, so just understanding that alone helps infer the meaning behind his use of flourishing.

Also, synonyms aren't always proper replacements for words - they have similar meanings, but the meanings aren't identical. For the word flourish, time is a factor to success, where Success has no time relevance.

He's also been clear that a successful government is a terrible thing.



Keep on stretching your brain so nobody that marginally agrees with you is ever wrong about anything, however. I think its just adorable.

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]