Let’s take two examples of government, one where it was responsive to the needs of the majority, and one where it was not. Let’s set aside minor differences. I know that right wingers do not like Franklin Roosevelt for a host of reasons. But I also know they do not like Joe Stalin as well. I’m having a problem now because I just read some comments at 4&20, and as I see it, both Roosevelt and Stalin represent the same thing … government. There is no gradation. Government is, or isn’t, and has no quality other than oppression. It cannot be controlled, and even if we like what it does in minor doses, those small amounts always lead to larger abuse.
That’s fairly typical thinking on the right wing, the missing middle, the inability to think in grays. But I thought it would be interesting to do a thought experiment. Let’s say that, for instance, government hiring people to take away our garbage is good government, and government hiring people to break into our houses and steal our possessions is a bad thing. Is it possible to have one without the other? Of course! One is a public service, one is a criminal enterprise. If, by chance, government comes under control of a criminal enterprise, then indeed we have a problem. We have a problem too if ExxonMobil comes under control of criminals, or Bank of America or the local YMCA. Or the Supreme Court, congress, or the presidency.
So then, the problem is not ExxonMobil or the YMCA or government. it is criminals. Bad people. They are a problem in private society, a problem in government.
FDR was effective. Let’s call what he did “representative government.” Another word for that is rule by “us.” We did good things for ourselves. Stalin was a bad dude. Let’s call what he did “tyranny.” That’s another word for rule by criminals. Does it follow that representative government naturally leads to rule by criminals? Quite the opposite, it appears. The criminals were upset by representative government, and have been working ever since FDR held office to destroy his legacy. They hate unions, minimum wage, child labor laws, import tariffs, high marginal taxes, Social Security. They have countered all of this by corrupting politics with money, stealing elections, launching illegal wars, spending us into a ditch … it seems that the criminals are very much opposed to representative government.
So does good government naturally lead to criminal government? No. Not at all. There are merely reactionaries around us, always waiting to pounce, take advantage, seize the public treasury for their own use. These are criminals, and they are being protected by police right now against people who want representative government.
So I wish to take the phrase “representative government” and set it aside, so that it not be thrown into the same pool with “government,” so that we cannot be told that all “government” is alike. The following words are from Dave Budge at 4&20, my substitution of words used for his in brackets. It’s startling what he is really saying!
But one must remember that no matter how egregious the behavior of cops is it is you, dear voter, who indirectly gave them that power. Many of you, I believe, support federal funding of local and state police. Many of you have called for more enforcement by the legal system for protections against civil rights violations.
It would seem that many only want to have enforced those rules with which they agree. Sorry, you can’t have it both ways. The solution, then, is to work to change the rules….I’m not making a red herring. I’m saying that there is a high correlation between wanting more [representative]government and getting more [representative] government abuse. … If you ask for more [representative] government you’ll get more abuse of power. If you want to level the playing field for the poor you have to reduce the ability for the state to discriminate against them. That means expanding freedom and ridding the law of moralistic nonsense in the name of public health.
You blame spooky big corporate interests? Think of [representative] government as the Federal Bank of Abuse and the (well, some) Corporations as Willie Sutton. Why do they rob the banks, cause that’s where the money is. …But the solution will never be to get business to stop rent-seeking (unless you subscribe to a full [representative] state.) One cannot expect a dog to be anything but a dog. The only limits that are effective are those on the grant of favoritism. If you can show me another way (short of complete [representative government] ) I’m all ears.
I can be accused of putting words in his mouth. I surely am, and yet, am I derailing his words or merely amplifying his message, maybe decoding, or removing the dog whistle aspect? He is the one who cannot distinguish between representative government and rule by criminals. But I think he is saying something much more basic – that we have to learn to live with criminals. We cannot keep them caged up. That harms freedom.
It’s quite a muddled thought process he’s got going there, so there is never going to be a unified theory of government coming from him. What will come from him is more of the same, the notion that we must never interfere with the power of the strong to control the weak (euphemistically referred to as “rent seeking.”) That robs us of our freedom. He’s deep in contradiction. Rand would suggest he examine his underlying assumptions.
Piece of Mindful 
Even Jesus accepted that tax revenue belonged to Ceasar, who was responsible to Roman citizens to keep criminals in check. Right-wingers now deny cops, with extreme hostility, the means to support families with the audacity of wanting a little more for the next generation of cops. Don’t misunderstand, I am not defending police policy, or behavior, in any way, just their need for work in exchange for a decent living. Some actually want their sons and daughters to earn a college degree and escape the “blue-collar” grind that has kept food on the table and a roof over their heads for generations. Greedy 99%-ers.
LikeLike
There’s quite a distinction between local government and its ability to be restrained from criminal behavior and distant governments which fails to represent their constituents.
Distant governments tend to practice “Soft Despotism”
LikeLike
Not interested in your link, but think about this: Is not what you have said true in general and not just about government?
LikeLike
Points made in the vid endorse what I said. Governments become detached to the people who sent them. Call it beltway flu or Potomac fever.
Then there’s the over educated and their inflated egos. Go to a Ivy League School get some fancy title and suddenly a certain air of superiority emerges.
Its that “air” that leads a “we know better” attitude, prevalent in most liberal or progressive DNA.
You suffer from it. Politicians catch it early.
I agree with Rahe, Obamacare is tyranny. Passed by back room deals and bribes it goes against individualism and toward the collective. A collective who will begin to make decisions on rationing care weighing some ones “worth” or age over treatment.
You deflected by saying local vs. distant is true in any situation.
I can’t think of any situation where that disconnect impacts us more than governmental intrusion on our lives.
LikeLike
If this is so, why then can’t voters simply replace “detached” incumbents and correct wherever and whenever necessary? It is of course a problem with individuals, not government. We citizens have the power, but won’t use it. Why is that Swede?
LikeLike
Great question. One of the reasons for detached governing is outside influence.
The left decries the Koch Bros. pouring money into races, the right accuses Soros.
I thought the originalists partially solved that problem. Senators sent to DC were picked or appointed by the state legislators.
Would we have Tester, Max or even Burns if the state reps. picked them?
I doubt it.
LikeLike
Also there seems to be no escaping “collectivism”.
“Collectivists always espouse the cause of peace, but by peace they mean an absence of opposition — and whether that is accomplished by enforced obedience or the deaths of their opponents is, ultimately, immaterial to them. It is a matter of not the slightest concern to Nancy Pelosi, for example, that the “health care” individual mandate might be resisted by people who view it as a violation of their natural, God-given and inalienable rights to liberty and property. If someone refuses, there are fines for that in the law. If someone refuses to pay Nancy’s fine, there are jail cells to accommodate them. If someone refuses the privilege of federal jail time for their principled resistance to tyranny, there are federal SWAT teams — and their state and local familiars who are “of the body” — to come and kill your ass for the temerity of refusing the federal leviathan’s insistence upon obedience. Of course you will obey, she believes, for the body has said that you will. Your death, if you insist upon it, is in the the interest of the body. It will be done, after all, to further your own “health care.”-Vanderboegh
LikeLike
Oh Mark, make sure you catch “The Lost Bullet” tonight on the National Geo. Channel.
Debunks the Kennedy second shooter theory.
LikeLike
“Outside influence,” I agree. However, currently we have the biggest force of outside influence, multi-nationals and uber-rich individuals, posing as “persons” and getting away with it because of our “appointed” and approved Supreme Court. I must insist again that we individual citizens have the power, and refuse to use it wisely. What makes outside influence so effective? Are we really just one giant brain-freeze nation?
LikeLike
When a speeder gets pulled over and successfully offers a bribe who’s at fault? The offender or the officer?
Likewise, when the multinationals and uber-rich bribe in their own best interest why doesn’t the receiver get blamed? Never, 90% of the time they get re-elected.
Not in progressive circles. Quid pro quo status quo. Oh, and union money-not the same. Union money sparkles with honesty and integrity.
I think our founders knew that people wouldn’t pay attention. That’s why they decided on a representative form of government with checks and balances.
Trusting of course, on the character of the people chosen.
LikeLike
JFK assassination has long been put away in my mind as a Carlos Marcello hit. Given that he confessed to it while in prison (he was unknowingly talking to an FBI agent planted as a fellow prisoner, and they got it on tape), that pretty well seals it for me. (“Yeah, I had the son of a bitch killed. I wish I could have done it myself.”)
Koch Brothers on one side, Soros on the other is false equivalency, and again you have your head up the two-party ass. Do you ever Not think that way?
The rest of your words are talking points, collectivism and all of that. But I do appreciate that some of them were your own, and not links and quotes.
Here’s something to think about: ExxonMobil is a large corporation owned by indifferent stockholders who only want a return on their investment, and are constantly pressurizing management to deliver. The refinery in Billings puts out SO2 in large quantities, and many people complain about health problems as a result. But it does no good to complain to the local ExxonMobil people, as they cannot make decisions like that. It does even less good to complain to the national office, as they don’t care. The city government of Billings won’t do anything, because ExxonMobil is more powerful than they are and can have people fired or removed form office by use of influence.
What to do: EPA in DC is bigger and stronger than ExxonMobil and represents US, the public, and tells ExxonMobil to clean up its act or pay large fines.
ExxonMobil hates that idea, and so back-doors the process, installing politicians in office who cut the balls off EPA. You, of course, cheer this process because government is evil and private enterprise good.
LikeLike
Mark, all around the parameters or the Billings refinery complex we have reporting stations, air sniffers manned by computers and sensing equipment that’s on watch 24/7.
Few if any violations. The sick people you mentioned? Any proof?
LikeLike
But why, Swede? Why are the reporting stations there? Who put them there? Was it the city of Billings? No. Did ExxonMobil do it voluntarily? No.
Please think this through
LikeLike
I’ve lived downwind from the Exxon and Conoco refinery complexes since ’76. I’ve drank spring water that flows down the coulees on the west facing slopes. I’ve eaten deer and steers that have grazed exclusively on prairie grasses which grows less than a mile of the stacks.
Same with my family. Raised kids which all are on combination academic and athletic scholarships in college.
Never in the 35+ years here have I seen any evidence of harm done to kids, man, or beast.
LikeLike
I get that. I am not good at the science behind the issue, but was led to understand that SO2 only stays airborne for a while and then settles to earth. For that reason, if it is indeed harmful, then proximity would matter. And I honestly don’t know if it is harmful or just a mean-old let’s piss on ExxonMobil issue. The worst polluter in that regard is Cenex, but they don’t worry about it too much as there are not a whole lot of people in its downstream, That’s what I was told. ConocoPhillips on the other hand is in a population-dense area, and has indeed invested in equipment to keep its output down.
But that is all missing the point. I used that as an example of how regulation works – that the regulating entities have to be more powerful than those they regulate, and that the “excessive regulation” issue has been drummed up by Exxon and others for the sole reason that they want to dismantle the regulators and not spend money doing things like curbing pollution. They like it when the public pays their cost of doing business.
We could go deeper into this issue, but you would have to disinvest in the regulators-are-stupid-bureaucrats attitude, and I don’s see that happening anytime soon.
LikeLike
On related news.
The culling continues.
As reported today in the Suzhou evening news.
Former President Shen Changfu of China Mobile Telecom Chongjing Co, Ltd was sentenced to death on charges of taking bribes of over 36 million RMB. (Around $6 million U.S.D) On 17Nov, 2011 his son Shen Juncheng was sentenced to ten years in prison for taking bribes valued at 13 million RMB ($2M USD) In this case, the son was using his fathers connections to support getting new contracts for companies. He was then paid dividends by the companies.
LikeLike
Swede,
Whenever facts seem to conflict with your doctrine, you evade. Denial is how Americans seem to maintain while living The Big Lie. Neither party gives a rats behind about what real people and their families need. Too busy stealing, and cheating them out of their life-savings for “growth” and “markets.” We are now experiencing denial’s consequences. As the old Eagles tune goes, “… you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.” We are all in this together. Getting used to it is the hard part, I know.
LikeLike
Mark, you’re right ’bout there being no comparison between Soros and the Kochs.
“Mr. Soros met with Mr. Obama’s top economist on February 25, 2009 and twice more with senior officials in the Old Executive Office Building on March 24th and 25th as the stimulus plan was being crafted. Later, Mr. Soros also participated in discussions on financial reform.
Then, in the first quarter of 2009, Mr. Soros went on a stock buying spree in companies that ultimately benefited from the federal stimulus.
Soros doubled his holdings in medical manufacturer Hologic, a company that benefited from stimulus spending on medical systems
Soros tripled his holdings in fiber channel and software maker Emulus, a company that wound up scoring a large amount of federal funds going to infrastructure spending
Soros bought 210,000 shares in Cisco Systems, which came up big in the stimulus lottery
Soros also bought Extreme Networks, which, months later, said it was expanding broadband to rural America “as part of President Obama’s broadband strategy”
Soros bought 1.5 million shares in American Electric Power, a company Mr. Obama gave $1 billion to in June 2009
Soros bought shares in utility company Ameren, which bagged a $540 million Department of Energy loan
Soros bought 250,000 shares of Public Service Enterprise Group, 500,000 shares of NRG Energy, and almost a million shares of Entergy—all companies that came up winners in the Department of Energy taxpayer giveaway that produced the Solyndra debacle
Soros bought into BioFuel Energy, a company that benefitted when the EPA announced a regulation on ethanol
Soros bought Powerspan in April 2009. Just weeks later, the clean-energy company landed $100 million from the Department of Energy
In the second quarter of 2009, Soros bought education technology giant Blackboard, which became a big recipient of education stimulus money
Soros also bought Burlington Northern Santa Fe and CSX, both beneficiaries of Mr. Obama’s plans for revitalizing the railroads
Soros bought Cognizant Technology Solutions, which scored stimulus funds in education and health care technology
Soros also bought 300,000 shares of Constellation Energy Group and 4.6 million shares of Covanta, both of which landed taxpayers’ money through the stimulus, the former of which bagged $200 million
LikeLike
You do know that the word “gullible” is not in the dictionary?
LikeLike
By the way, for anyone interested. Swede neglected to mention that he is channeling Andrew Breitbart, and has not done a lick of research beyond unquestionly parroting every fricking word!
Also note that Swede still! has his head up that two-parties-are-really-different ass, thinking that the same money from the same sources pursues different ideological objectives by funding both parties.
It’s nuts!
LikeLike
Calling someone a liar is one thing, proving it’s another.
These facts are from Peter Scheizer”s book, “Throw Them All Out”.
Something that I’m sure you would agree with.
LikeLike
Goddamit, why don’t YOU do some “research.” Acting as someone’s sock puppet is neither telling the truth or lying. It is just undignified.
LikeLike
When I pick up the book I’ll provide you the footnotes.
Like that’ll make a difference.
LikeLike
No, you look at the footnotes!
Man, you are dense!
LikeLike