Ha Ha ! STUPID AMERICANS !!!

[Svartalf]

Who's a welfare leech?

[JimC]

Not me!

I toil daily to inspire young minds with the glory of quadratic equations...

And they give me money!

[pErvinalia]

I'm sure governments wish they had "absolute (effective) political control of the markets."

That's the current socialist goal. The more control the better, which is why the US is seeing an avalanche of executive-action regulations rather than representative legislation.

If you want to find out who does what, follow the money trail. You'll discover that governments in occidental democracies are bought and controlled by "free enterprise" styled corporations.

I know you'd like to think so, but it ain't strictly true. Sure, business influences government, and it should because government exists to serve business,

Bollocks. Governments exist to manage SOCIETY!

The government has absolutely no business whatsoever using the regulation of commerce in order to drive social or political agendas,

That's EXACTLY what the job of government is (not political agendas, of course, but definitely social outcomes).

You'll also notice that those corporations are no ideological warriors for freedom either. They are not interested in supporting individual freedoms at all. They only care about maximising profit, which is why they don't have any scruples investing trillions of dollars in the evil communist run China and other non-democratic countries. They then spend trillions more trading with them. Think about that next time you buy a pair of Levis or a t-shirt, or a blender, or some crockery, cutlery,...

Actually they are ideological warriors against communism. And very good ones. China is far less Communist and far more capitalistic today than at any time since Mao because the entrepreneurs of China see the benefits of capitalism and the pernicious evil that communism actually is, and they are ever-so-slowly strangling the old-guard Marxists by making them choke on the reality that people want to be free in much the same way as Reagan strangled the old-guard Marxists in the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

If the US is socialist, China is fucking Marxist central!

[mistermack]

The legitimate role of government is to give the people what they voted for, if it's possible, or the nearest approximation to it, if it's not.
If you stand for election, and say that you will take all property for the state, by force where necessary, then that is what you should do, if you get elected. Nothing is sacred.

The US kills people, who have been found guilty of some crimes by 12 average Americans.
If the state can do that, it can do anything.

What's money, or property, compared to life. If they can take your life, they can take anything.
So long as they made it clear what they stood for, when they got elected.

[Seth]

...welfare leeches like you...

So fuck you very much.

Ever the convincing debater...

Hey, one good ad hom deserves another. I've told you this many times. Besides, I was feeling particularly atavistic.

[Seth]

I'm sure governments wish they had "absolute (effective) political control of the markets."

That's the current socialist goal. The more control the better, which is why the US is seeing an avalanche of executive-action regulations rather than representative legislation.

If you want to find out who does what, follow the money trail. You'll discover that governments in occidental democracies are bought and controlled by "free enterprise" styled corporations.

I know you'd like to think so, but it ain't strictly true. Sure, business influences government, and it should because government exists to serve business,

Bollocks. Governments exist to manage SOCIETY!

That too.

The government has absolutely no business whatsoever using the regulation of commerce in order to drive social or political agendas,

That's EXACTLY what the job of government is (not political agendas, of course, but definitely social outcomes).

No it's not. Why would you think government functionaries are more qualified to determine how people live their lives than they are? Government's only legitimate role in managing society is, again, policing behavior to prevent the initiation of force or fraud, and nothing else.

You'll also notice that those corporations are no ideological warriors for freedom either. They are not interested in supporting individual freedoms at all. They only care about maximising profit, which is why they don't have any scruples investing trillions of dollars in the evil communist run China and other non-democratic countries. They then spend trillions more trading with them. Think about that next time you buy a pair of Levis or a t-shirt, or a blender, or some crockery, cutlery,...

Actually they are ideological warriors against communism. And very good ones. China is far less Communist and far more capitalistic today than at any time since Mao because the entrepreneurs of China see the benefits of capitalism and the pernicious evil that communism actually is, and they are ever-so-slowly strangling the old-guard Marxists by making them choke on the reality that people want to be free in much the same way as Reagan strangled the old-guard Marxists in the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

If the US is socialist, China is fucking Marxist central!

Well yeah, duh! But it's less so now than it was before, thanks to capitalism's corrosive effects on the cancer of Marxism.

[piscator]

Government's only legitimate role in managing society is, again, policing behavior to prevent the initiation of [my expansive definitions of] force or fraud, and nothing else.

Fixed.
To the point, the US government was chartered to "...Establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility...Promote the General Welfare, and ensure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity,..."

...Not as a small claims court.

[MrJonno]

Government's only legitimate role in managing society is, again, policing behavior to prevent the initiation of [my expansive definitions of] force or fraud, and nothing else.

Fixed.
To the point, the US government was chartered to "...Establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility...Promote the General Welfare, and ensure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity,..."

...Not as a small claims court.

That's sounds remarkably like, the role of the US government is whatever the people want it to be which sounds very sensible to me

[piscator]

Government's only legitimate role in managing society is, again, policing behavior to prevent the initiation of [my expansive definitions of] force or fraud, and nothing else.

Fixed.
To the point, the US government was chartered to "...Establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility...Promote the General Welfare, and ensure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity,..."

...Not as a small claims court.

That's sounds remarkably like, the role of the US government is whatever the people want it to be which sounds very sensible to me

It was a remarkably liberal document when it was written.

Compare with: "Establish Order, ensure complete collection of all Revenues...Promote the Federal Largess, and ensure uniform Subject compliance, now and forever anon..."

[Seth]

Government's only legitimate role in managing society is, again, policing behavior to prevent the initiation of [my expansive definitions of] force or fraud, and nothing else.

Fixed.
To the point, the US government was chartered to "...Establish Justice,

..."exercise the police power of the state to ensure that neither force nor fraud are initiated by anyone and bring justice to those who initiate force or fraud."

ensure domestic Tranquility...

..."exercise the police power of the state to ensure that citizens act always in a peaceable manner..."

Promote the General Welfare,

"...Exercise the police power of the state to ensure that everyone can exercise their individual rights to the maximum extent possible consistent with ordered liberty..."

and ensure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity,..."

..."by respecting and protecting the foundational rights and liberties upon which the Republic is founded, prime among which is the right to limited government that exercises only those powers expressly authorized to it by the People..."

...Not as a small claims court.

Nope, a court of justice and liberty.

[JimC]

Seth, governments do not have to take notice of the ravings of a tiny minority of extremist libertarians, who seem convinced that what they say is something the rest of the world could give a shit about...

[macdoc]

expressly authorized by the people hmmmm sounds like a mob rule to me .....or maybe Kommitee ?


they talked a lot about The People too.



Just photoshop Libertarianism in the top line

•••

Meanwhile in the way it should work

Could not have happened to a more deserving asshole...

Private Messages Reveal NBA's Adam Silver Initially Weighed Lighter Punishment For Sterling
By Christopher Harress, Zoe Mintz, and Alan Huffman
on April 30 2014 5:04 PM

New York, UNITED STATESNBA Commissioner Adam Silver speaks at a news conference in New York April 29, 2014. The National Basketball Association on Tuesday banned Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling from the game for life for racist comments that outraged players, fans and the U.S. President. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton

On April 26, Adam Silver, the commissioner of the National Basketball Association, sent an email message to an old friend, the retired sportswriter Peter Vecsey.

Silver was by then faced with what must have been among the most fraught decisions of his life. A day earlier, the enormous entertainment gossip site TMZ went public with the now-infamous recording in which Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling made racist remarks about African-Americans. How would the NBA -- a league in which 80 percent of the players are black -- respond?

According to Vecsey, in response to a question he posed about the punishment, Silver revealed that the commissioner was inclined to impose a moderate punishment and not seek to strip Sterling of the team he had owned for more than three decades.

Vecsey's message asked, "'Could you tell me what is the maximum you could do? I want to tweet it,’” he told the International Business Times. At that point, Vecsey said, no one had asked how far the league could go with Sterling’s prospective punishment. He says Silver texted back: “suspension and a $1 million fine.” Vecsey tweeted Silver’s response that night.

Silver confirmed to IBTimes through an NBA spokesman that he had messaged Vecsey about the lesser penalty, though he did not specify “one-year” in describing the possible suspension.

Yet on Monday, as Silver stepped up to a podium in New York to deliver his verdict, the terms had changed dramatically: The commissioner banished Sterling “for life” while announcing his intent to persuade other NBA owners to force a sale of the Clippers.

How the commissioner shifted from favoring a mere suspension to unleashing a lifetime ban speaks to the dramatic pressures he faced in shepherding a league that has become a global business, in an age in which racist speech has become broadly anathema.

It was not only a public relations issue. Billions of dollars were at stake as horrified sponsors swiftly yanked their associations with the Clippers -- an exciting basketball team whose brand had suddenly become radioactive. Then there was the issue of possible player walkouts in the middle of the playoffs if Sterling appeared to have gotten off lightly.

According to Vecsey, who counts himself friends with Silver, it soon became obvious that a lesser punishment “would not play well with the players.”

The extent of that reality emerged on Tuesday via comments published in the Washington Post from Roger Mason Jr., the first vice-president of the National Basketball Players Association. Mason told the Post that many players conveyed to the league their willingness to boycott a slate of playoff games on Tuesday night unless Silver meted out a substantial punishment.

“I heard from our players and all of our players felt like boycotting the games tonight,” Mason told the Post. “We’re talking about all NBA players. We’re talking about the playoff games tonight.”

Games between the Chicago Bulls and Washington Wizards, the Memphis Grizzlies and Oklahoma City Thunder, and the Golden State Warriors and Clippers would have all been threatened.

For the NBA, that outcome was simply unthinkable -- no less than a full-scale disaster.

“I can’t imagine what would have happened if all the teams decided not to play their games last night,” PR strategist Jack Deschauer told IBTimes. “Just the television implications alone... You know, four games getting moved in the playoffs, and this does become a billion dollar question for the NBA.”

more
http://www.ibtimes.com/private-messages ... ng-1578603

Not so stupid Americans in this case.

[pErvinalia]

That's the current socialist goal. The more control the better, which is why the US is seeing an avalanche of executive-action regulations rather than representative legislation.

If you want to find out who does what, follow the money trail. You'll discover that governments in occidental democracies are bought and controlled by "free enterprise" styled corporations.

I know you'd like to think so, but it ain't strictly true. Sure, business influences government, and it should because government exists to serve business,

Bollocks. Governments exist to manage SOCIETY!

That too.

The government has absolutely no business whatsoever using the regulation of commerce in order to drive social or political agendas,

That's EXACTLY what the job of government is (not political agendas, of course, but definitely social outcomes).

No it's not. Why would you think government functionaries are more qualified to determine how people live their lives than they are? Government's only legitimate role in managing society is, again, policing behavior to prevent the initiation of force or fraud, and nothing else.

Bullshit. Governments are meant to do the wishes of the people. Governments were obviously created to help manage societies as populations got bigger and bigger. That is unrelated to your strawman about "government functionaries" "determin[ing] how people live their lives". People vote in the government that best represents their wishes and goals. Governments are supposed to manage societies to deliver those goals. The problem is that governments have been wholly bought out by corporations and the rich and no longer serve the needs of the majority of society. They serve the needs of themselves and the top 5 or 10%.

You'll also notice that those corporations are no ideological warriors for freedom either. They are not interested in supporting individual freedoms at all. They only care about maximising profit, which is why they don't have any scruples investing trillions of dollars in the evil communist run China and other non-democratic countries. They then spend trillions more trading with them. Think about that next time you buy a pair of Levis or a t-shirt, or a blender, or some crockery, cutlery,...

Actually they are ideological warriors against communism. And very good ones. China is far less Communist and far more capitalistic today than at any time since Mao because the entrepreneurs of China see the benefits of capitalism and the pernicious evil that communism actually is, and they are ever-so-slowly strangling the old-guard Marxists by making them choke on the reality that people want to be free in much the same way as Reagan strangled the old-guard Marxists in the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

If the US is socialist, China is fucking Marxist central!

Well yeah, duh! But it's less so now than it was before, thanks to capitalism's corrosive effects on the cancer of Marxism.

[/quote]

So why is the US getting allegedly moar socialist over time?!! Lol. Logic... you don't has it.

[JimC]

rEvolutionist wrote:

The problem is that governments have been wholly bought out by corporations and the rich and no longer serve the needs of the majority of society. They serve the needs of themselves and the top 5 or 10%.

I agree with your earlier point that governments should be there to manage society (or at least the parts that need managing). There have been situations where it is clear that governments need to back off from some issues (particularly those down to personal morality), and let people manage themselves. However, I allow a much bigger role than classical libertarians or dry economists, as long as the balance between government action and personal freedom is carefully thought through. If the equilibrium shifts too far in either direction for the comfort of the majority, then the polling booth is the solution.

However, I think you are being too absolutist, and too despairing about the role of corporations and the extremely wealthy. Sure, they have too much power, wealth and influence on government (for their own self interest) for my liking, but governments are not "wholly bought out by corporations and the rich". Whatever corporate influence there may be on media, governments must still keep an ear to the wall of popular opinion and outrage; they can and have been bought to account.

[pErvinalia]

True. It's clearly worse in the US, than here. But it's not a hell of a lot better here. Particularly with this current government. Cutting the mining and carbon tax (i.e. pandering to rich interests) and then pushing austerity onto the lower class.