Sometimes, doing the rights things doesn't help ...

[GreyGeek]

[img width=400 height=255]http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/Cavemen_contradiction_Organ.gif[/img]

[Snowhog]

Re: Sometimes, doing the rights things doesn't help ...

hehe. Ain't it SO true!

I so wish that (here) American's would 'wake up' and realize that our elected 'elite' are DESTROYING, by action or inaction, what everyone who came before them worked SO HARD to establish - the greatest nation on the face of the earth! The United States was more than just a Nation - it was a dream realized. I fear that it is fast turning into a nightmare.

[Telengard]

Re: Sometimes, doing the rights things doesn't help ...

I so wish that (here) American's would 'wake up' and realize that our elected 'elite' are DESTROYING, by action or inaction, what everyone who came before them worked SO HARD to establish - the greatest nation on the face of the earth! The United States was more than just a Nation - it was a dream realized. I fear that it is fast turning into a nightmare.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.

A great Empire, like a great Cake, is most easily diminished at the Edges.

[Snowhog]

Re: Sometimes, doing the rights things doesn't help ...

True, true, oh so true. Your quote: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." really hits home. The general apathy of the American voter is of course, the 'cause' of the 'problem.' In this countries early days, only the landed gentry (those who owned property) were permitted to vote, as it was seen, that if those who did not 'have anything to loose' - did not own property - were allowed to vote, they would be more inclined to vote for issues/causes that benefited them - cause the Government to provide 'entitlement' [transfer of wealth from the 'landed' to the 'unlanded']. There is good reason to promote that idea again. To many 'non-property owners' - those who do not own/are purchasing a home - vote for 'goodies' from the Government that have to come from those who have so much to loose. True, it could be otherwise, IF the existing apathy would be overcome, and those who have the most to loose, would realize the power they have, and get out en masse and VOTE to take back their Government.

[Telengard]

Re: Sometimes, doing the rights things doesn't help ...

There is good reason to promote that idea again. To many 'non-property owners' - those who do not own/are purchasing a home - vote for 'goodies' from the Government that have to come from those who have so much to loose.

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.

When reading about the great figures of the past I am frequently astonished to find that many of the issues of our modern age aren't entirely new. Human nature hasn't really changed at all since their times, and their thoughts on politics, ethics, and morality echo my own (or vice versa) more often than not. Hmm, come to think of it . . .

The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.

. . . even the thoughts expressed in my previous paragraph are entirely unoriginal.
:P

[Snowhog]

Re: Sometimes, doing the rights things doesn't help ...

. . . even the thoughts expressed in my previous paragraph are entirely unoriginal.
:P

If we learn not from the past, we learn nothing.

[blobfish]

Re: Sometimes, doing the rights things doesn't help ...

In this countries early days, only the landed gentry (those who owned property) were permitted to vote, as it was seen, that if those who did not 'have anything to loose' - did not own property - were allowed to vote, they would be more inclined to vote for issues/causes that benefited them

Because the wealthy are so virtuous that they vote for others interest. I would say via the media the rich are the only ones voting anyway.

[GreyGeek]

Re: Sometimes, doing the rights things doesn't help ...

Tocqueville had some interesting comments:
The Tyranny of the majority -- "Placing the majority's interests so far above a dissenting individual's interest that the individual would be actively oppressed, just like the oppression by tyrants and despots."

Today it is the self-aggrandizing elite pushing "Politically Correct" behavior, which leads to repressing Constitutional freedoms. I saw it in action this morning on ABC's GMA, where they presented a piece in which a girl held signs which twisted "Sticks and Stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me" into the opposite. The obvious "lesson" is that we are to submit to thought control because some whinny girl's self esteem is so low she determines her self worth based on statement by people she doesn't even like. She's peeing straight up into the air and calling it rain.

"A democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it. "

"The best laws cannot make a constitution work in spite [the absence] of morals" -- needs no explanation.

"Socialism is a new form of slavery. "

"As for me, I am deeply a democrat; this is why I am in no way a socialist. Democracy and socialism cannot go together. You can't have it both ways. "

"... Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude. "

"Egalitarianism is an expression of envy. It means no one shall be better off than I am; and as long as this is preferred to good government, good government is impossible. "

"The man who asks of freedom anything other than itself is born to be a slave."

"In politics... shared hatreds are almost always the basis of friendships."

"There is in fact a manly and legitimate passion for equality that spurs all men to wish to be strong and esteemed. This passion tends to elevate the lesser to the rank of the greater. But one also finds in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to want to bring the strong down to their level, and which reduces men to preferring equality in servitude to inequality in freedom. "


This last quote is often attributed to Tocqueville but it was by Elmer T. Peterson in The Daily Oklahoman (9 December 1951):
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."
Variant: The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.

[GreyGeek]

Re: Sometimes, doing the rights things doesn't help ...

I found some interesting political syllogisms here.

The six dialectical contradictions of socialism in the USSR:

There is full employment - yet no one is working.
No one is working - yet the factory quotas are fulfilled.
The factory quotas are fulfilled - yet the stores have nothing to sell.
The stores have nothing to sell - yet people got all the stuff at home.
People got all the stuff at home - yet everyone is complaining.
Everyone is complaining - yet the voting is always unanimous.

The author of those contradictions was a former graphic artist for a department in the propaganda arm of the USSR, and goes by the pseudonym "RedSquare". He has authored other interesting contradictions, like this one:

Liberals and taxes:

Liberals want to help the poor - yet they won't give money to charities.
They won't give money to charities - yet they'd like the government to become a gigantic charity.
They'd like the government to become a gigantic charity - yet the money has to be taken from people by force.
The money has to be taken from people by force - yet they call it welfare.
They call it welfare - yet higher taxes make everyone poorer.
Higher taxes make everyone poorer - yet liberals find ways not to pay taxes.
Liberals find ways not to pay taxes - yet they get to be chosen to run the government.

[claydoh]

Re: Sometimes, doing the rights things doesn't help ...

awesome quotes

I am of the thought that we are too far strayed from the ideal of a Republic, or States' rights if you will. The Federal government should be significantly smaller, and the States' should be larger in some cases. 50 sets of bureaucracies instead of one monster, perhaps even spread that concept to commerce: keeping the larger businesses perhaps more regional or local (especially the banks). I think this also puts the voter at least a little bit closer to the votee

Though I wonder how much of everyone's tax money my small state looses out on if that were to actually occur..... :/

[dibl]

Re: Sometimes, doing the rights things doesn't help ...

awesome quotes

+1

I agree that the U.S. Federal Government is way too big, and too far detached from the citizens to be of any practical use, other than defending the Republic and printing the currency. And the states are currently organized into counties and towns, and each of them has its own bureaucracy. With an efficient application of technology, at least 50% of this bloat could just go away -- there's no reason to have the state police, the county police, and the town police, for example. Just have the state police. Same with the garbage collectors and the courts and the road maintenance folks. All these layers are too expensive to maintain, and too cumbersome to provide efficient service.

[claydoh]

Re: Sometimes, doing the rights things doesn't help ...

I disagree

I think having state police and county sheriffs as well as the local cops keeps us from having a, well. police state and having say 50 states equaling 50 bureaucracies might mean something to the Wal-marts, BoA's and Verizon's, but I only have to deal with one (in theory of course, I am sure my concepts are full of holes ) .

[Telengard]

Re: Sometimes, doing the rights things doesn't help ...

I am of the thought that we are too far strayed from the ideal of a Republic, or States' rights if you will.

Careful. Some people have different notions about the meaning of the phrase "states. rights" than I think you and I share.

The Federal government should be significantly smaller, and the States' should be larger in some cases.

I am of the opinion that it is already too late for us to shrink the size and power of the federal government. For many decades our state governments have been gobbling up federal money in enormous amounts. Now the states can't afford to operate without that money, especially because they are required to meet federal mandates in exchange for taking the money. Essentially I believe they have sold our liberties in order to make themselves fat and rich.

If that isn't bad enough, the federal government has such an insatiable appetite for money that taxes aren't enough to satisfy them. They just print up more money whenever they want, and then spend it on things of dubious value to taxpayers. Of course devalues money generated by commerce (commerce being the exchange of valuable goods and services between private entities). The flipside of devalued currency is inflation, and people who actually work for a living (to pay taxes) get to bear the burden of the government's excesses.

[oshunluvr]

Re: Sometimes, doing the rights things doesn't help ...

As a former Federal employee I can say with first hand experience that federal bureaucracies never reduce in size. I was employed during two "reductions" in the workforce. Both times, the people who's jobs were eliminated simply had new "needed" jobs created for them and then changed offices (sometimes). The politicians and the people that work for them are best at protecting each other from the desires of the people rather than servicing the desires of the people. This is not the solo territory of the liberals or conservatives - anyone far enough from the center to label themselves one or the other has by definition removed themselves from mainstream society. Most of the positioning and so-called debate is really just obfuscation.

I agree for the need for greater individual States rights (not to be confused with Rights of The State). This was one of the primary goals of the framers and seen as a protection against federal tyranny.

Personally, I think income tax at the federal level needs to be abolished and replaced with a national sales tax. That way, tourists, illegals, and the ultra-rich all contribute to the system. You could still have refunds for the poor. Then we need to with eliminate deficit spending.

[Telengard]

Re: Sometimes, doing the rights things doesn't help ...

This is not the solo territory of the liberals or conservatives - anyone far enough from the center to label themselves one or the other has by definition removed themselves from mainstream society. Most of the positioning and so-called debate is really just obfuscation.

QFT

Then we need to with eliminate deficit spending.

Can't be done. The United States of America would cease to exist if it were forced to pay its debt (and by it I do mean we).

Edit
I should have said that we can't cut back on federal spending. Yeah, there's a difference.