Topic: Does anyone else think it is fucked up that banks can incorporate like any other business?
Anonymous A started this discussion 12 years ago #33,552
I've been pondering this and it doesn't make any sense. To me, it seems obvious that it should be illegal. Just as a corporation has a responsibility to protect its shareholders, banks have a responsibility to protect their depositors. There seems to be a clear conflict of interest here. They can't do both. There needs to be some separation between business and finance.
Banks like Ally, Capital One, and American Express offer savings accounts around .85%. This is because banks depend (or at least should depend) on depositors for capital, so that they can loan money and make money, and then share some of the return with their depositors in the form of APY dividends. APY goes up when they want encourage people to save more because they need more capital. Even shitty credit unions offer APYs around .25%.
Banks like Bank of America give .01% APY in their savings accounts and even charge a monthly fee for that account. You have to deposit $1,000,000 into a CD at Bank of America to even get the .25% that a shitty credit union would give, let alone the .85% some other banks give. Ally's interest checking is .40% and their CDs are around 1%. Meanwhile, Bank of America stock holders are getting paid quarterly dividends of .24%. About the equivalent of a savings account with a .96 APY compounded quarterly. So, why would anyone put money in a Bank of America savings account, when they could put money in Bank of America stock, or better yet, why would anyone bank with Bank of America at all?
It's seems to me that when a bank is also a corporation it borders on a Ponzi scheme. They fuck over their depositors as much as possible, and then they use the money they make off those deposits to pay their shareholders dividends instead of paying their depositors dividends, which makes the stock look more lucrative and drives up the demand for the stock, which drives up the price of the stock, which makes the bank look more successful than it really is. Eventually, I hope, depositors will realize how bad they're getting fucked and pull out, and the whole Ponzi scheme comes crashing down.
It seems the more financially stable solution is to make this illegal in first place, which would force banks to protect their depositors the same way corporations protect their shareholders. It would basically force all banks into the credit union business model. Why people don't just stick to credit unions or private banks to begin with is what I don't understand. Am I missing something here? Are there any finance experts who would like to chime in?
Banks like Ally, Capital One, and American Express offer savings accounts around .85%. This is because banks depend (or at least should depend) on depositors for capital, so that they can loan money and make money, and then share some of the return with their depositors in the form of APY dividends. APY goes up when they want encourage people to save more because they need more capital. Even shitty credit unions offer APYs around .25%.
Banks like Bank of America give .01% APY in their savings accounts and even charge a monthly fee for that account. You have to deposit $1,000,000 into a CD at Bank of America to even get the .25% that a shitty credit union would give, let alone the .85% some other banks give. Ally's interest checking is .40% and their CDs are around 1%. Meanwhile, Bank of America stock holders are getting paid quarterly dividends of .24%. About the equivalent of a savings account with a .96 APY compounded quarterly. So, why would anyone put money in a Bank of America savings account, when they could put money in Bank of America stock, or better yet, why would anyone bank with Bank of America at all?
It's seems to me that when a bank is also a corporation it borders on a Ponzi scheme. They fuck over their depositors as much as possible, and then they use the money they make off those deposits to pay their shareholders dividends instead of paying their depositors dividends, which makes the stock look more lucrative and drives up the demand for the stock, which drives up the price of the stock, which makes the bank look more successful than it really is. Eventually, I hope, depositors will realize how bad they're getting fucked and pull out, and the whole Ponzi scheme comes crashing down.
It seems the more financially stable solution is to make this illegal in first place, which would force banks to protect their depositors the same way corporations protect their shareholders. It would basically force all banks into the credit union business model. Why people don't just stick to credit unions or private banks to begin with is what I don't understand. Am I missing something here? Are there any finance experts who would like to chime in?
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 44 minutes later[^] [v] #464,053
It would be funny if all the right-wing politicians in USAmerica talked about this.
Ks !KansasxqvM joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 4 minutes later, 48 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #464,054
@OP
Banks fuck over everyone involved, that's why they're often called banksters. Banks are scheme as you described, but they a government backed scheme. Mix the banks, the government, and wall street tigether and you got a shit stew going. Hell the government hands like 80 billion a month to wall street alone...
Consumers are getting smarter though, and things will change (eventually), but banks will be dicking everyone for a long time yet.
Banks fuck over everyone involved, that's why they're often called banksters. Banks are scheme as you described, but they a government backed scheme. Mix the banks, the government, and wall street tigether and you got a shit stew going. Hell the government hands like 80 billion a month to wall street alone...
Consumers are getting smarter though, and things will change (eventually), but banks will be dicking everyone for a long time yet.
Anonymous B replied with this 12 years ago, 10 minutes later, 58 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #464,055
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
> things will change (eventually)
You really think so? I'm almost convinced we're due to hit a new "dark age" of corporate feudalism anytime here...
> things will change (eventually)
You really think so? I'm almost convinced we're due to hit a new "dark age" of corporate feudalism anytime here...
squeegee !first/o5zA joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 4 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #464,057
Metæ joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 2 hours later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #464,073
@464,053 (B)
You didn't think the Republican party was serious about the Christianity stuff, did you?
@464,054 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
We need to end socialism for wall street. Both Democrats and Republicans are on the bankster's payroll, though, so I'm not holding my breath.
@OP
Fractional reserve banking is inherently unsound (money can't really be in two places at once). The FDIC tries to paper over the cracks and I guess in that sense depositors are protected because the government could just print up money in a crisis and bail out depositors.
Fed games with interest rates, QE, and paying interest on excess reserves to prop up wall street is why you can't get more than 1% savings interest anymore.
@464,055 (B)
its_happening.exe
You didn't think the Republican party was serious about the Christianity stuff, did you?
@464,054 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
We need to end socialism for wall street. Both Democrats and Republicans are on the bankster's payroll, though, so I'm not holding my breath.
@OP
Fractional reserve banking is inherently unsound (money can't really be in two places at once). The FDIC tries to paper over the cracks and I guess in that sense depositors are protected because the government could just print up money in a crisis and bail out depositors.
Fed games with interest rates, QE, and paying interest on excess reserves to prop up wall street is why you can't get more than 1% savings interest anymore.
@464,055 (B)
its_happening.exe
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 26 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #464,081
@previous (Metæ)
It's not even fractional reserve banking that I have a problem with. I have an understanding that if I put money in savings, the bank is going to loan out that money. I have a problem with stockholders getting paid instead of depositors getting paid. I understand that stockholders are taking more risk and therefore should earn more but there is such a gross difference between how a shareholder is treated and how a customer is treated, even though they are both giving the bank money. Of course, people are fucking stupid for banking with Bank of America knowing that they getting .01% and that the money the bank is making off their money is going to shareholders, so it's their own fault, but still. I bank with Ally.
It's not even fractional reserve banking that I have a problem with. I have an understanding that if I put money in savings, the bank is going to loan out that money. I have a problem with stockholders getting paid instead of depositors getting paid. I understand that stockholders are taking more risk and therefore should earn more but there is such a gross difference between how a shareholder is treated and how a customer is treated, even though they are both giving the bank money. Of course, people are fucking stupid for banking with Bank of America knowing that they getting .01% and that the money the bank is making off their money is going to shareholders, so it's their own fault, but still. I bank with Ally.
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 41 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #464,101
@previous (A)
Again, depositors were paid a lot better before the Fed-engineered housing bubble popped. I remember savings rates of 3,4, even 5%.
BoA gives you a shitty bargain as an owner or a customer or a depositor (and as a taxpayer too thanks to the Bush-Obama TBTF policy). As you've found, the best course of action is to find a better deal with a competing bank.
All publicly traded companies have the owner/customer difference in treatment, though. I don't expect Amazon to pay me dividends because I shop there. I may not even want my money in Amazon stock due to volatility.
Again, depositors were paid a lot better before the Fed-engineered housing bubble popped. I remember savings rates of 3,4, even 5%.
BoA gives you a shitty bargain as an owner or a customer or a depositor (and as a taxpayer too thanks to the Bush-Obama TBTF policy). As you've found, the best course of action is to find a better deal with a competing bank.
All publicly traded companies have the owner/customer difference in treatment, though. I don't expect Amazon to pay me dividends because I shop there. I may not even want my money in Amazon stock due to volatility.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #464,126
@464,055 (B)
I dunno, but I like to be optimistic. What you're saying seems inevitable though (I like the way you phrased that).
@464,073 (Metæ)
Both parties fistfuck everyone. I tried really hard for a long time not to believe that, but it's undeniable. The NSA deal was the last straw.
I dunno, but I like to be optimistic. What you're saying seems inevitable though (I like the way you phrased that).
@464,073 (Metæ)
Both parties fistfuck everyone. I tried really hard for a long time not to believe that, but it's undeniable. The NSA deal was the last straw.
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 3 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #464,141
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
I think at the top there's no difference. Obama had amazing progressive rhetoric but I still have not seen him act differently than Bush or Romney would have. Different style and packaging and branding but nothing of substance.
I think at the top there's no difference. Obama had amazing progressive rhetoric but I still have not seen him act differently than Bush or Romney would have. Different style and packaging and branding but nothing of substance.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 11 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #464,149
@previous (Metæ)
because none of them are actually on either side, like at all.
If you are a politician in the United State, you are centrist.
because none of them are actually on either side, like at all.
If you are a politician in the United State, you are centrist.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 10 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #464,153
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 3 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #464,154
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 9 hours later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #464,205
@464,101 (Metæ)
> owner or a customer or a depositor
Or an employee. Don't forget employee.
(I am a Bank of America employee.)
Also, savings interest rates were never that high. I remember even before the housing bubble big banks were still only paying between .01-.05% and even credit unions would only give .25%. It's because they're greedy assholes who will take the rates as low as they can and because there are a lot of stupid assholes who will accept rates that low. Nobody gets my money for free.
> owner or a customer or a depositor
Or an employee. Don't forget employee.
(I am a Bank of America employee.)
Also, savings interest rates were never that high. I remember even before the housing bubble big banks were still only paying between .01-.05% and even credit unions would only give .25%. It's because they're greedy assholes who will take the rates as low as they can and because there are a lot of stupid assholes who will accept rates that low. Nobody gets my money for free.
Anonymous B replied with this 12 years ago, 22 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #464,207
@464,153 (H)
> Meta
> libertarian
That was sort of a no-brainer, but welcome to the discussion Anon H!
> Meta
> libertarian
That was sort of a no-brainer, but welcome to the discussion Anon H!
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #464,208
@464,055 (B)
Neofeudalism is the plan. Rationalists have concluded it's the only way the earth can support 10 billion people while allowing technological development to continue for the chosen few.
Neofeudalism is the plan. Rationalists have concluded it's the only way the earth can support 10 billion people while allowing technological development to continue for the chosen few.
Anonymous B replied with this 12 years ago, 54 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #464,212
@previous (I)
I'm scared you are right. The middle ages sort of got kick-started when the wealthy, land-owning few could afford to stop paying taxes because they could tell tax collectors to fuck off. (because they had a bunch of people at their disposal to back them up when the tax collectors came around, and they had a reputation in court with other ultra-wealthy nobles) The current move toward corporate tax breaks strikes me as setting up the same kind of dynamic. Except instead of private armies and local support, we have armies of lawyers and international law. It's disturbing when the ultra-rich can side-step taxes at the cost of the shrinking middle class. Soon there might not be a middle class left, and then we can just go back to talking about people who can live on yachts and people who are hoping for a chance to get a job polishing those yachts.
I'm scared you are right. The middle ages sort of got kick-started when the wealthy, land-owning few could afford to stop paying taxes because they could tell tax collectors to fuck off. (because they had a bunch of people at their disposal to back them up when the tax collectors came around, and they had a reputation in court with other ultra-wealthy nobles) The current move toward corporate tax breaks strikes me as setting up the same kind of dynamic. Except instead of private armies and local support, we have armies of lawyers and international law. It's disturbing when the ultra-rich can side-step taxes at the cost of the shrinking middle class. Soon there might not be a middle class left, and then we can just go back to talking about people who can live on yachts and people who are hoping for a chance to get a job polishing those yachts.
Anonymous I replied with this 12 years ago, 29 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #464,213
Anonymous B replied with this 12 years ago, 44 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #464,214
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #464,223
@464,212 (B)
During feudalism didn't the landowners have to contribute soldiers and/or money to the king? I'm no expert on medieval tax law by any means, though.
You have a point. GE paying zero tax while working Americans pay upwards of 10% (even the "47%" who don't pay income taxes still bear a heavy social security and medicare burden) is simply corporate socialism. If GE pays zero tax, then the working man should pay zero tax as well.
The ultra rich will always be able to dodge taxes. They can afford armies of CPAs and lawyers to exploit tax loopholes and then offshore what they haven't been able to deduct. If all that fails, they can just renounce their US citizenship and seek a nicer tax regime (like Whitney Houston).
Best solution would be cut the government down small enough that it could live on excise taxes and tariffs, like it did for about the first 130 years,
During feudalism didn't the landowners have to contribute soldiers and/or money to the king? I'm no expert on medieval tax law by any means, though.
You have a point. GE paying zero tax while working Americans pay upwards of 10% (even the "47%" who don't pay income taxes still bear a heavy social security and medicare burden) is simply corporate socialism. If GE pays zero tax, then the working man should pay zero tax as well.
The ultra rich will always be able to dodge taxes. They can afford armies of CPAs and lawyers to exploit tax loopholes and then offshore what they haven't been able to deduct. If all that fails, they can just renounce their US citizenship and seek a nicer tax regime (like Whitney Houston).
Best solution would be cut the government down small enough that it could live on excise taxes and tariffs, like it did for about the first 130 years,
(Edited 25 seconds later.)
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 12 years ago, 27 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #464,234
@previous (Metæ)
> Best solution would be cut the government down small enough that it could live on excise taxes and tariffs, like it did for about the first 130 years,
That's a terrible idea, that's like saying modern people should live by the rules of goat-herders. Things have changed, bro, we're nothing like we were for the first 130 years, that was a completely different world, dude. We couldn't live with such a small ineffectual government. I mean shit, food producers can barely make healthy food free from poisons and taint and we've got a whole agency dedicated to protecting food.
So much mercury would pour into rivers without a strong government regulatory body that cancer would be as common as a cold in the future.
unfortunately as we have progressed, and as technology has progressed, we have become an extremely complicated society that will not work without a fully functioning and strong central authority. Jesus christ, they deregulate banking and the stock market crashes and we entered a recession, you start dismantling the support structure that underpins our society and you start to get collapses.
The idea of small, weak federal government is never going to become a reality. It can't. not anymore.
maybe it worked fine in 1780's (even though it didn't and was riddled with problems) it stopped working just as soon as more complicated supports were needed. we haven't been increasing the size of government, steadily, for over 200 years for no reason. going backwards would be a mistake.
idealistically it's a beautiful and romantic dream, but also about as realistic as suggesting we all go back to using the simpler horse drawn carriage instead of modern day Leer Jets to travel across country.
> Best solution would be cut the government down small enough that it could live on excise taxes and tariffs, like it did for about the first 130 years,
That's a terrible idea, that's like saying modern people should live by the rules of goat-herders. Things have changed, bro, we're nothing like we were for the first 130 years, that was a completely different world, dude. We couldn't live with such a small ineffectual government. I mean shit, food producers can barely make healthy food free from poisons and taint and we've got a whole agency dedicated to protecting food.
So much mercury would pour into rivers without a strong government regulatory body that cancer would be as common as a cold in the future.
unfortunately as we have progressed, and as technology has progressed, we have become an extremely complicated society that will not work without a fully functioning and strong central authority. Jesus christ, they deregulate banking and the stock market crashes and we entered a recession, you start dismantling the support structure that underpins our society and you start to get collapses.
The idea of small, weak federal government is never going to become a reality. It can't. not anymore.
maybe it worked fine in 1780's (even though it didn't and was riddled with problems) it stopped working just as soon as more complicated supports were needed. we haven't been increasing the size of government, steadily, for over 200 years for no reason. going backwards would be a mistake.
idealistically it's a beautiful and romantic dream, but also about as realistic as suggesting we all go back to using the simpler horse drawn carriage instead of modern day Leer Jets to travel across country.
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #464,286
@previous (squeegee !first/o5zA)
> We couldn't live with such a small ineffectual government. I mean shit, food producers can barely make healthy food free from poisons and taint and we've got a whole agency dedicated to protecting food.
Then what good does it do? That's like James Clapper testifying we need more NSA surveillance because Al Qaeda's just as strong as it was on 9/11, despite 13 years of war and PATRIOT Act surveillance. State intervention and planning fails, so we need more state intervention and planning. Its a circular argument.
> So much mercury would pour into rivers without a strong government regulatory body that cancer would be as common as a cold in the future.
Or people whose property was damaged by industrialists could sue them for damages.
> unfortunately as we have progressed, and as technology has progressed, we have become an extremely complicated society that will not work without a fully functioning and strong central authority.
We need a powerful authority to lock up people in cages for using drugs, tell us what to eat, make our choices for us, define marriage, spy on us, bail out the big banks, and blow up brown people on the other side of the world.
> Jesus christ, they deregulate banking and the stock market crashes and we entered a recession, you start dismantling the support structure that underpins our society and you start to get collapses.
So we'll empower the same Federal Reserve that engineered the financial crisis, and didn't see it coming to fix it.
> The idea of small, weak federal government is never going to become a reality. It can't. not anymore.
Why not?
> maybe it worked fine in 1780's (even though it didn't and was riddled with problems) it stopped working just as soon as more complicated supports were needed.
It wasn't needed. It was borne out of politicians successfully gaining more power by promising more free lunches.
> we haven't been increasing the size of government, steadily, for over 200 years for no reason. going backwards would be a mistake.
Goldman Sachs and Halliburton agree.
> idealistically it's a beautiful and romantic dream, but also about as realistic as suggesting we all go back to using the simpler horse drawn carriage instead of modern day Leer Jets to travel across country.
Who the hell can afford Lear Jets these days?
> We couldn't live with such a small ineffectual government. I mean shit, food producers can barely make healthy food free from poisons and taint and we've got a whole agency dedicated to protecting food.
Then what good does it do? That's like James Clapper testifying we need more NSA surveillance because Al Qaeda's just as strong as it was on 9/11, despite 13 years of war and PATRIOT Act surveillance. State intervention and planning fails, so we need more state intervention and planning. Its a circular argument.
> So much mercury would pour into rivers without a strong government regulatory body that cancer would be as common as a cold in the future.
Or people whose property was damaged by industrialists could sue them for damages.
> unfortunately as we have progressed, and as technology has progressed, we have become an extremely complicated society that will not work without a fully functioning and strong central authority.
We need a powerful authority to lock up people in cages for using drugs, tell us what to eat, make our choices for us, define marriage, spy on us, bail out the big banks, and blow up brown people on the other side of the world.
> Jesus christ, they deregulate banking and the stock market crashes and we entered a recession, you start dismantling the support structure that underpins our society and you start to get collapses.
So we'll empower the same Federal Reserve that engineered the financial crisis, and didn't see it coming to fix it.
> The idea of small, weak federal government is never going to become a reality. It can't. not anymore.
Why not?
> maybe it worked fine in 1780's (even though it didn't and was riddled with problems) it stopped working just as soon as more complicated supports were needed.
It wasn't needed. It was borne out of politicians successfully gaining more power by promising more free lunches.
> we haven't been increasing the size of government, steadily, for over 200 years for no reason. going backwards would be a mistake.
Goldman Sachs and Halliburton agree.
> idealistically it's a beautiful and romantic dream, but also about as realistic as suggesting we all go back to using the simpler horse drawn carriage instead of modern day Leer Jets to travel across country.
Who the hell can afford Lear Jets these days?
Rogi FORGOT HIS DAMN TRIPCODE joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #464,301
Look at all of these words. I bet most of them are angry words.
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 12 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #464,322
@464,286 (Metæ)
> > We couldn't live with such a small ineffectual government. I mean shit, food producers can barely make healthy food free from poisons and taint and we've got a whole agency dedicated to protecting food.
> Then what good does it do? That's like James Clapper testifying we need more NSA surveillance because Al Qaeda's just as strong as it was on 9/11, despite 13 years of war and PATRIOT Act surveillance. State intervention and planning fails, so we need more state intervention and planning. Its a circular argument.
No, it's not a circular argument. New food additives and products (think GM seeds) enter the market place every year, without regulation then there'd be nothing to remove unhealthy products from the shelves. Just think about pasteurized milk, it would be dumb to remove a regulation that requires canned goods be free from bacteria just because the FDA has to constantly monitor our food in a never ending battle to keep unhealthy food out of the supermarkets.
> > So much mercury would pour into rivers without a strong government regulatory body that cancer would be as common as a cold in the future.
> Or people whose property was damaged by industrialists could sue them for damages.
Not if it's not illegal to do so.
> > unfortunately as we have progressed, and as technology has progressed, we have become an extremely complicated society that will not work without a fully functioning and strong central authority.
> We need a powerful authority to lock up people in cages for using drugs, tell us what to eat, make our choices for us, define marriage, spy on us, bail out the big banks, and blow up brown people on the other side of the world.
you might as well complain about getting speeding tickets too. none of this is reason to do anything but complain until it's changed to the opposite. You're not actually arguing for the removal of jails, the FDA, the courts, the FEDs, congress or the military. you simply want them to not arrest us for drugs, not tell us what to eat, not make choices for us, not define marriage, not to spy, not to bail out banks, and not to blow up brown people. you just want the agencies or departments that control that stuff to do the opposite, not to not exist at all.
if they didn't exist at all then there'd be anarchy, and that's not a viable alternative.
> > Jesus christ, they deregulate banking and the stock market crashes and we entered a recession, you start dismantling the support structure that underpins our society and you start to get collapses.
> So we'll empower the same Federal Reserve that engineered the financial crisis, and didn't see it coming to fix it.
it was congress that repealed Glass-Steagal not the FED. The fed had nothing to do with it, all they did was bail out the banks afterwards. The financial crisis came from repealing legislation that was designed to prevent exactly what happened...
> > The idea of small, weak federal government is never going to become a reality. It can't. not anymore.
> Why not?
because we're not a country of redneck farmers and poor dirt herders anymore. Maybe back in the day you could get away with saying "dirt roads ought be made 2 man's arm's breadths from side to side," but these days to engineer a road you need way, way more regulation than that.
> > maybe it worked fine in 1780's (even though it didn't and was riddled with problems) it stopped working just as soon as more complicated supports were needed.
> It wasn't needed. It was borne out of politicians successfully gaining more power by promising more free lunches.
No, it's like how we had an army and as soon as we started flying planes we then also started an air force. New technologies required the creation of an entirely new department. As we progress as a society and grow in complexity, we will need more and more governmental oversight. Like NASA. We didn't have a space agency, now we do now that we have the technology. Government grows as society grows in complexity.
> > we haven't been increasing the size of government, steadily, for over 200 years for no reason. going backwards would be a mistake.
> Goldman Sachs and Halliburton agree.
What does that have to do with anything? Goldman Sachs benefited form the removal of government regulations and Haliburton benefits from a LACK of regulations. You're just adding to why government regulations are necessary.
> > We couldn't live with such a small ineffectual government. I mean shit, food producers can barely make healthy food free from poisons and taint and we've got a whole agency dedicated to protecting food.
> Then what good does it do? That's like James Clapper testifying we need more NSA surveillance because Al Qaeda's just as strong as it was on 9/11, despite 13 years of war and PATRIOT Act surveillance. State intervention and planning fails, so we need more state intervention and planning. Its a circular argument.
No, it's not a circular argument. New food additives and products (think GM seeds) enter the market place every year, without regulation then there'd be nothing to remove unhealthy products from the shelves. Just think about pasteurized milk, it would be dumb to remove a regulation that requires canned goods be free from bacteria just because the FDA has to constantly monitor our food in a never ending battle to keep unhealthy food out of the supermarkets.
> > So much mercury would pour into rivers without a strong government regulatory body that cancer would be as common as a cold in the future.
> Or people whose property was damaged by industrialists could sue them for damages.
Not if it's not illegal to do so.
> > unfortunately as we have progressed, and as technology has progressed, we have become an extremely complicated society that will not work without a fully functioning and strong central authority.
> We need a powerful authority to lock up people in cages for using drugs, tell us what to eat, make our choices for us, define marriage, spy on us, bail out the big banks, and blow up brown people on the other side of the world.
you might as well complain about getting speeding tickets too. none of this is reason to do anything but complain until it's changed to the opposite. You're not actually arguing for the removal of jails, the FDA, the courts, the FEDs, congress or the military. you simply want them to not arrest us for drugs, not tell us what to eat, not make choices for us, not define marriage, not to spy, not to bail out banks, and not to blow up brown people. you just want the agencies or departments that control that stuff to do the opposite, not to not exist at all.
if they didn't exist at all then there'd be anarchy, and that's not a viable alternative.
> > Jesus christ, they deregulate banking and the stock market crashes and we entered a recession, you start dismantling the support structure that underpins our society and you start to get collapses.
> So we'll empower the same Federal Reserve that engineered the financial crisis, and didn't see it coming to fix it.
it was congress that repealed Glass-Steagal not the FED. The fed had nothing to do with it, all they did was bail out the banks afterwards. The financial crisis came from repealing legislation that was designed to prevent exactly what happened...
> > The idea of small, weak federal government is never going to become a reality. It can't. not anymore.
> Why not?
because we're not a country of redneck farmers and poor dirt herders anymore. Maybe back in the day you could get away with saying "dirt roads ought be made 2 man's arm's breadths from side to side," but these days to engineer a road you need way, way more regulation than that.
> > maybe it worked fine in 1780's (even though it didn't and was riddled with problems) it stopped working just as soon as more complicated supports were needed.
> It wasn't needed. It was borne out of politicians successfully gaining more power by promising more free lunches.
No, it's like how we had an army and as soon as we started flying planes we then also started an air force. New technologies required the creation of an entirely new department. As we progress as a society and grow in complexity, we will need more and more governmental oversight. Like NASA. We didn't have a space agency, now we do now that we have the technology. Government grows as society grows in complexity.
> > we haven't been increasing the size of government, steadily, for over 200 years for no reason. going backwards would be a mistake.
> Goldman Sachs and Halliburton agree.
What does that have to do with anything? Goldman Sachs benefited form the removal of government regulations and Haliburton benefits from a LACK of regulations. You're just adding to why government regulations are necessary.
(Edited 48 seconds later.)
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #464,324
@previous (squeegee !first/o5zA)So... everything for the state, nothing outside the state, nothing above the state?
Metæ double-posted this 12 years ago, 21 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #464,327
@464,322 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
> No, it's not a circular argument. New food additives and products (think GM seeds) enter the market place every year, without regulation then there'd be nothing to remove unhealthy products from the shelves.
It's not the government's place to make food decisions. If an adult wants to subsist entirely on twinkies and coke and die of diabetes, that's their choice, just like they could choose to eat vegan or gluten free or however they want.
> Just think about pasteurized milk, it would be dumb to remove a regulation that requires canned goods be free from bacteria just because the FDA has to constantly monitor our food in a never ending battle to keep unhealthy food out of the supermarkets.
If people want to buy raw milk, aware of the risks, then good for them. Should people be banned from eating eggs sunny side up or rare steak due to the miniscule risk? What about ordering a hamburger medium rare?
> not if it's not illegal to do so.
Civil court and criminal courts are different. For example (albeit a silly one) it's not illegal to have a wet floor, but you can sue a store if you slip and fall on theirs if you can convince a jury they were negligent.
> > We need a powerful authority to lock up people in cages for using drugs, tell us what to eat, make our choices for us, define marriage, spy on us, bail out the big banks, and blow up brown people on the other side of the world.
> you might as well complain about getting speeding tickets too. none of this is reason to do anything but complain until it's changed to the opposite. You're not actually arguing for the removal of jails, the FDA, the courts, the FEDs, congress or the military. you simply want them to not arrest us for drugs, not tell us what to eat, not make choices for us, not define marriage, not to spy, not to bail out banks, and not to blow up brown people. you just want the agencies or departments that control that stuff to do the opposite, not to not exist at all.
I'm confused, first you say I don't want them to do things, but then you say I don't want them existing at all. It's the latter.
> if they didn't exist at all then there'd be anarchy, and that's not a viable alternative.
No more anarchy than if government didn't dictate fashion or what kind of music you listen to.
> > > Jesus christ, they deregulate banking and the stock market crashes and we entered a recession, you start dismantling the support structure that underpins our society and you start to get collapses.
> > So we'll empower the same Federal Reserve that engineered the financial crisis, and didn't see it coming to fix it.
> it was congress that repealed Glass-Steagal not the FED. The fed had nothing to do with it, all they did was bail out the banks afterwards. The financial crisis came from repealing legislation that was designed to prevent exactly what happened...
But if the state caused the crisis by repealing Glass-Steagal, then how can we trust the state to fix it?
> > > The idea of small, weak federal government is never going to become a reality. It can't. not anymore.
> > Why not?
> because we're not a country of redneck farmers and poor dirt herders anymore. Maybe back in the day you could get away with saying "dirt roads ought be made 2 man's arm's breadths from side to side," but these days to engineer a road you need way, way more regulation than that.
We weren't a nation of backwoods dirt farmers in 1913 either, but we had a lot less government intervention.
> > > maybe it worked fine in 1780's (even though it didn't and was riddled with problems) it stopped working just as soon as more complicated supports were needed.
> > It wasn't needed. It was borne out of politicians successfully gaining more power by promising more free lunches.
> No, it's like how we had an army and as soon as we started flying planes we then also started an air force. New technologies required the creation of an entirely new department. As we progress as a society and grow in complexity, we will need more and more governmental oversight. Like NASA. We didn't have a space agency, now we do now that we have the technology. Government grows as society grows in complexity.
Actually, the Air Force was originally the Army Air Force. And NASA needs to be privatized.
> > > we haven't been increasing the size of government, steadily, for over 200 years for no reason. going backwards would be a mistake.
> > Goldman Sachs and Halliburton agree.
> What does that have to do with anything? Goldman Sachs benefited form the removal of government regulations and Haliburton benefits from a LACK of regulations. You're just adding to why government regulations are necessary.
They also benefited from TARP, TBTF, and Quantitive Easing. Halliburton benefits from the bloated Pentagon budget.
> No, it's not a circular argument. New food additives and products (think GM seeds) enter the market place every year, without regulation then there'd be nothing to remove unhealthy products from the shelves.
It's not the government's place to make food decisions. If an adult wants to subsist entirely on twinkies and coke and die of diabetes, that's their choice, just like they could choose to eat vegan or gluten free or however they want.
> Just think about pasteurized milk, it would be dumb to remove a regulation that requires canned goods be free from bacteria just because the FDA has to constantly monitor our food in a never ending battle to keep unhealthy food out of the supermarkets.
If people want to buy raw milk, aware of the risks, then good for them. Should people be banned from eating eggs sunny side up or rare steak due to the miniscule risk? What about ordering a hamburger medium rare?
> not if it's not illegal to do so.
Civil court and criminal courts are different. For example (albeit a silly one) it's not illegal to have a wet floor, but you can sue a store if you slip and fall on theirs if you can convince a jury they were negligent.
> > We need a powerful authority to lock up people in cages for using drugs, tell us what to eat, make our choices for us, define marriage, spy on us, bail out the big banks, and blow up brown people on the other side of the world.
> you might as well complain about getting speeding tickets too. none of this is reason to do anything but complain until it's changed to the opposite. You're not actually arguing for the removal of jails, the FDA, the courts, the FEDs, congress or the military. you simply want them to not arrest us for drugs, not tell us what to eat, not make choices for us, not define marriage, not to spy, not to bail out banks, and not to blow up brown people. you just want the agencies or departments that control that stuff to do the opposite, not to not exist at all.
I'm confused, first you say I don't want them to do things, but then you say I don't want them existing at all. It's the latter.
> if they didn't exist at all then there'd be anarchy, and that's not a viable alternative.
No more anarchy than if government didn't dictate fashion or what kind of music you listen to.
> > > Jesus christ, they deregulate banking and the stock market crashes and we entered a recession, you start dismantling the support structure that underpins our society and you start to get collapses.
> > So we'll empower the same Federal Reserve that engineered the financial crisis, and didn't see it coming to fix it.
> it was congress that repealed Glass-Steagal not the FED. The fed had nothing to do with it, all they did was bail out the banks afterwards. The financial crisis came from repealing legislation that was designed to prevent exactly what happened...
But if the state caused the crisis by repealing Glass-Steagal, then how can we trust the state to fix it?
> > > The idea of small, weak federal government is never going to become a reality. It can't. not anymore.
> > Why not?
> because we're not a country of redneck farmers and poor dirt herders anymore. Maybe back in the day you could get away with saying "dirt roads ought be made 2 man's arm's breadths from side to side," but these days to engineer a road you need way, way more regulation than that.
We weren't a nation of backwoods dirt farmers in 1913 either, but we had a lot less government intervention.
> > > maybe it worked fine in 1780's (even though it didn't and was riddled with problems) it stopped working just as soon as more complicated supports were needed.
> > It wasn't needed. It was borne out of politicians successfully gaining more power by promising more free lunches.
> No, it's like how we had an army and as soon as we started flying planes we then also started an air force. New technologies required the creation of an entirely new department. As we progress as a society and grow in complexity, we will need more and more governmental oversight. Like NASA. We didn't have a space agency, now we do now that we have the technology. Government grows as society grows in complexity.
Actually, the Air Force was originally the Army Air Force. And NASA needs to be privatized.
> > > we haven't been increasing the size of government, steadily, for over 200 years for no reason. going backwards would be a mistake.
> > Goldman Sachs and Halliburton agree.
> What does that have to do with anything? Goldman Sachs benefited form the removal of government regulations and Haliburton benefits from a LACK of regulations. You're just adding to why government regulations are necessary.
They also benefited from TARP, TBTF, and Quantitive Easing. Halliburton benefits from the bloated Pentagon budget.
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #464,329
@464,324 (Metæ)
no dude, nothing is above the governed. you seem to think that the government exists despite the people instead of as a result of them.
@previous (Metæ)
> It's not the government's place to make food decisions. If an adult wants to subsist entirely on twinkies and coke and die of diabetes, that's their choice, just like they could choose to eat vegan or gluten free or however they want.
Is the government stopping you from eating twinkies drinking coke or getting diabetes? Sure, that's a person's choice, but it's no differant than smoking. One can make an ethical argument against smoking in that the harm it causes individuals impacts society as a whole in the form of higher insurance premiums and loss of life and loss of economic output. It is not hard to argue that it is to the greater benefit to the whole to do away with cigarettes and unhealthy foods. Of course this is not what people want so it's not what we get. Now as soon as a majority of people want a healthier society then these kinds of regulations will, at that time in the future, seem like us regulating asbestos use today.
> If people want to buy raw milk, aware of the risks, then good for them. Should people be banned from eating eggs sunny side up or rare steak due to the miniscule risk? What about ordering a hamburger medium rare?
You can't really ban people from eating raw eggs and unpasteurized milk, which is why you have to have a health code which says restaurants can't serve raw eggs, undercooked meats, or keep a filthy facility. just because someone requests to eat 3 week old rancid rat intestine doesn't mean that it's okay to sell it to them. but yeah, they can go eat it out of the gutter, more power to you.
> Civil court and criminal courts are different. For example (albeit a silly one) it's not illegal to have a wet floor, but you can sue a store if you slip and fall on theirs if you can convince a jury they were negligent.
so we need laws concerning negligence and regulations about safety, huh? So what's that, like OSHA regulations that are being violated? At any rate it'll be hard to sue anyone and have it mean anything in a little world of ineffectual government lacking basic regulations.
> I'm confused, first you say I don't want them to do things, but then you say I don't want them existing at all. It's the latter.
What i'm saying is that you think you want government regulations and agencies to go away, but actually you just want the regulations to be ones you like. like how you want to do away with rules and regulations and laws but also still want to be able to sue for negligence. You want to be able to eat whatever you want, but without the FDA you'd have no clue if what you were eating is even what you think it is! So really you just want government to be the way you want it, as opposed to not existing at all. Another example, you don't want the police to arrest you for drug use, rather than you don't want a police force at all.
> > if they didn't exist at all then there'd be anarchy, and that's not a viable alternative.
> No more anarchy than if government didn't dictate fashion or what kind of music you listen to.
Does the government dictate fashion or what kind of music we listen to? Maybe in North Korea they do, but i also would say anarchy would be much more brutal even than the north koreans. it would be worse, it'd be like fucking somolia.
> But if the state caused the crisis by repealing Glass-Steagal, then how can we trust the state to fix it?
who. else. can? There's no other option, if we deregulate further then banks will take even more advantage and fuck even more people out of their life savings. it's kinda sounding like you want corporate feudalism.
> We weren't a nation of backwoods dirt farmers in 1913 either, but we had a lot less government intervention.
the government in the 1930's was definitely larger than it was in 1830. it really will just keep getting bigger the larger and more complicated civilization becomes. Imagine when there's 14 billion people on earth and 900 million people in america. yeah, we're going to need a few more laws and a whole bunch of new bureaucracy before that's a manageable figure.
> Actually, the Air Force was originally the Army Air Force.
Yup, and to accommodate the increasing complexity of the military a whole new department was formed to focus on that new theater.
increasing complexity = more complex and larger government
> And NASA needs to be privatized.
Well, on this we'll just have to disagree. NASA has inspired more innovation than any other agency and spends the fewest % of tax dollars achieving their goals. Yeah, they should probably start farming out systems work to private companies the same way they used to farm out BOLT manufacturing and SHEET METAL MAKING to private companies, so it's a great idea to let SPACE X build whole rockets. But NASA achieves goals that private companies can't because it's not profitable. but the innovation that NASA's non-profitable ventures has added so much to the modern world that it's contribution can't be calculated. the modern world exists because of government funded science.
> They also benefited from TARP, TBTF, and Quantitive Easing.
none of which would have been necessary if not for the original repeal of a law specifically so investment banks can take the riskiest bets possible...
> Halliburton benefits from the bloated Pentagon budget.
no one is saying that the pentagon's budget isn't inflated, and no one is saying that halliburton isn't a crooked company that doesn't take advantage of every situation that it can.
so i do not understand why you would want to introduce less rules and regulations to this already highly explosive arrangement.
no dude, nothing is above the governed. you seem to think that the government exists despite the people instead of as a result of them.
@previous (Metæ)
> It's not the government's place to make food decisions. If an adult wants to subsist entirely on twinkies and coke and die of diabetes, that's their choice, just like they could choose to eat vegan or gluten free or however they want.
Is the government stopping you from eating twinkies drinking coke or getting diabetes? Sure, that's a person's choice, but it's no differant than smoking. One can make an ethical argument against smoking in that the harm it causes individuals impacts society as a whole in the form of higher insurance premiums and loss of life and loss of economic output. It is not hard to argue that it is to the greater benefit to the whole to do away with cigarettes and unhealthy foods. Of course this is not what people want so it's not what we get. Now as soon as a majority of people want a healthier society then these kinds of regulations will, at that time in the future, seem like us regulating asbestos use today.
> If people want to buy raw milk, aware of the risks, then good for them. Should people be banned from eating eggs sunny side up or rare steak due to the miniscule risk? What about ordering a hamburger medium rare?
You can't really ban people from eating raw eggs and unpasteurized milk, which is why you have to have a health code which says restaurants can't serve raw eggs, undercooked meats, or keep a filthy facility. just because someone requests to eat 3 week old rancid rat intestine doesn't mean that it's okay to sell it to them. but yeah, they can go eat it out of the gutter, more power to you.
> Civil court and criminal courts are different. For example (albeit a silly one) it's not illegal to have a wet floor, but you can sue a store if you slip and fall on theirs if you can convince a jury they were negligent.
so we need laws concerning negligence and regulations about safety, huh? So what's that, like OSHA regulations that are being violated? At any rate it'll be hard to sue anyone and have it mean anything in a little world of ineffectual government lacking basic regulations.
> I'm confused, first you say I don't want them to do things, but then you say I don't want them existing at all. It's the latter.
What i'm saying is that you think you want government regulations and agencies to go away, but actually you just want the regulations to be ones you like. like how you want to do away with rules and regulations and laws but also still want to be able to sue for negligence. You want to be able to eat whatever you want, but without the FDA you'd have no clue if what you were eating is even what you think it is! So really you just want government to be the way you want it, as opposed to not existing at all. Another example, you don't want the police to arrest you for drug use, rather than you don't want a police force at all.
> > if they didn't exist at all then there'd be anarchy, and that's not a viable alternative.
> No more anarchy than if government didn't dictate fashion or what kind of music you listen to.
Does the government dictate fashion or what kind of music we listen to? Maybe in North Korea they do, but i also would say anarchy would be much more brutal even than the north koreans. it would be worse, it'd be like fucking somolia.
> But if the state caused the crisis by repealing Glass-Steagal, then how can we trust the state to fix it?
who. else. can? There's no other option, if we deregulate further then banks will take even more advantage and fuck even more people out of their life savings. it's kinda sounding like you want corporate feudalism.
> We weren't a nation of backwoods dirt farmers in 1913 either, but we had a lot less government intervention.
the government in the 1930's was definitely larger than it was in 1830. it really will just keep getting bigger the larger and more complicated civilization becomes. Imagine when there's 14 billion people on earth and 900 million people in america. yeah, we're going to need a few more laws and a whole bunch of new bureaucracy before that's a manageable figure.
> Actually, the Air Force was originally the Army Air Force.
Yup, and to accommodate the increasing complexity of the military a whole new department was formed to focus on that new theater.
increasing complexity = more complex and larger government
> And NASA needs to be privatized.
Well, on this we'll just have to disagree. NASA has inspired more innovation than any other agency and spends the fewest % of tax dollars achieving their goals. Yeah, they should probably start farming out systems work to private companies the same way they used to farm out BOLT manufacturing and SHEET METAL MAKING to private companies, so it's a great idea to let SPACE X build whole rockets. But NASA achieves goals that private companies can't because it's not profitable. but the innovation that NASA's non-profitable ventures has added so much to the modern world that it's contribution can't be calculated. the modern world exists because of government funded science.
> They also benefited from TARP, TBTF, and Quantitive Easing.
none of which would have been necessary if not for the original repeal of a law specifically so investment banks can take the riskiest bets possible...
> Halliburton benefits from the bloated Pentagon budget.
no one is saying that the pentagon's budget isn't inflated, and no one is saying that halliburton isn't a crooked company that doesn't take advantage of every situation that it can.
so i do not understand why you would want to introduce less rules and regulations to this already highly explosive arrangement.
(Edited 5 minutes later.)
TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 22 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #464,330
lol
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #464,337
@464,329 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
Your argument that we've come too far to reduce government, that it would be backwards to reduce government, or that we need more government because we are too technologically advanced to reduce government are stupid arguments. The British thought the exact same thing and made the exact same arguments when the colonies were trying to get the British Empire off their backs. Sometimes we do need to reduce government to progress. By your logic, 100% totalitarianism would be progress.
> You seem to think that the government exists despite the people instead of as a result of them.
That's because it does. "The People" do not exist. Their are only individuals and each individual has different beliefs, wants, and needs. The government existing as a result of the people is tyranny by the majority. Just because the majority want something should not give them the right to use government force to push their agenda on others. Majority may want the government to regulate food so that it's impossible for anything harmful to enter their bodies, but many people want their food choices respected. Majority may want the government keep the economy stable so that they feel secure, but if it comes at the cost of inflation, higher taxes, and lower wages, that's not fair to the other who do not consent.
You have this idea in your head the majority has the right to rule all, and as long as the government represents the majority then there is no limit to how pervasive government can be in our society. You are wrong. You say there is nothing higher than government. I say there is nothing higher than individual rights.
Your argument that we've come too far to reduce government, that it would be backwards to reduce government, or that we need more government because we are too technologically advanced to reduce government are stupid arguments. The British thought the exact same thing and made the exact same arguments when the colonies were trying to get the British Empire off their backs. Sometimes we do need to reduce government to progress. By your logic, 100% totalitarianism would be progress.
> You seem to think that the government exists despite the people instead of as a result of them.
That's because it does. "The People" do not exist. Their are only individuals and each individual has different beliefs, wants, and needs. The government existing as a result of the people is tyranny by the majority. Just because the majority want something should not give them the right to use government force to push their agenda on others. Majority may want the government to regulate food so that it's impossible for anything harmful to enter their bodies, but many people want their food choices respected. Majority may want the government keep the economy stable so that they feel secure, but if it comes at the cost of inflation, higher taxes, and lower wages, that's not fair to the other who do not consent.
You have this idea in your head the majority has the right to rule all, and as long as the government represents the majority then there is no limit to how pervasive government can be in our society. You are wrong. You say there is nothing higher than government. I say there is nothing higher than individual rights.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #464,344
@previous (A)
@previous (A)
> Your argument that we've come too far to reduce government, that it would be backwards to reduce government, or that we need more government because we are too technologically advanced to reduce government are stupid arguments. The British thought the exact same thing and made the exact same arguments when the colonies were trying to get the British Empire off their backs. Sometimes we do need to reduce government to progress. By your logic, 100% totalitarianism would be progress.
Well, i've not said we can't reduce government, specifically my argument is that we need government regulations as opposed to not having any regulations, which is the argument of anarchy vs government. if i have any point to make it's that it's better to live in a society that has rules and regulations than in one that lacks them. And yes, i do believe that as society grows and progresses our government grows and progresses with us, this is what has been observed. You don't have to believe that, but i think you're denying citizens have influence over the government. and that's what i think is a stupid argument.
> >You seem to think that the government exists despite the people instead of as a result of them.
> That's because it does. "The People" do not exist. Their are only individuals and each individual has different beliefs, wants, and needs. The government existing as a result of the people is tyranny by the majority. Just because the majority want something should not give them the right to use government force to push their agenda on others. Majority may want the government to regulate food so that it's impossible for anything harmful to enter their bodies, but many people want their food choices respected. Majority may want the government keep the economy stable so that they feel secure, but if it comes at the cost of inflation, higher taxes, and lower wages, that's not fair to the other who do not consent.
And i'm sure many people would like to go around openly raping and murdering instead of hiding it, but we have laws against that sort of stuff because why? just because an individual want's to do something doesn't give them the right to do that, "respect my rape and murder choices."
But since you're using the food choice argument i'll add that you aren't prevented from eating anything you like, your choices are fully respected. Food regulations fall on manufactures and regard cleanliness and proper labeling. Many food companies have "secret formulas." ask coke.
But, manufactures aren't allowed to have trace lead contamination no matter how sweet and delicious people think it tastes.
You can drink antifreeze, no one is stopping you, but wine makers aren't allowed to use it to increase potency!
> You have this idea in your head the majority has the right to rule all,
no i said that the majority rules as long as society is complicit with their rule
> and as long as the government represents the majority then there is no limit to how pervasive government can be in our society.
well, this is technically true, government will grow and grow up to the point of revolution. this is by design.
> You are wrong.
if you think that i think that majority rule has a natural right to rule any way that they like in defiance of the minority then you are wrong. I have repeatedly said at that point the government will fail due to revolt.
> You say there is nothing higher than government. I say there is nothing higher than individual rights.
I have repeatedly said that it is the collective will of the people expressed through their actions that is the most powerful and highest authority. Not the government itself which is nothing more than the bureaucratic underpinnings
@previous (A)
> Your argument that we've come too far to reduce government, that it would be backwards to reduce government, or that we need more government because we are too technologically advanced to reduce government are stupid arguments. The British thought the exact same thing and made the exact same arguments when the colonies were trying to get the British Empire off their backs. Sometimes we do need to reduce government to progress. By your logic, 100% totalitarianism would be progress.
Well, i've not said we can't reduce government, specifically my argument is that we need government regulations as opposed to not having any regulations, which is the argument of anarchy vs government. if i have any point to make it's that it's better to live in a society that has rules and regulations than in one that lacks them. And yes, i do believe that as society grows and progresses our government grows and progresses with us, this is what has been observed. You don't have to believe that, but i think you're denying citizens have influence over the government. and that's what i think is a stupid argument.
> >You seem to think that the government exists despite the people instead of as a result of them.
> That's because it does. "The People" do not exist. Their are only individuals and each individual has different beliefs, wants, and needs. The government existing as a result of the people is tyranny by the majority. Just because the majority want something should not give them the right to use government force to push their agenda on others. Majority may want the government to regulate food so that it's impossible for anything harmful to enter their bodies, but many people want their food choices respected. Majority may want the government keep the economy stable so that they feel secure, but if it comes at the cost of inflation, higher taxes, and lower wages, that's not fair to the other who do not consent.
And i'm sure many people would like to go around openly raping and murdering instead of hiding it, but we have laws against that sort of stuff because why? just because an individual want's to do something doesn't give them the right to do that, "respect my rape and murder choices."
But since you're using the food choice argument i'll add that you aren't prevented from eating anything you like, your choices are fully respected. Food regulations fall on manufactures and regard cleanliness and proper labeling. Many food companies have "secret formulas." ask coke.
But, manufactures aren't allowed to have trace lead contamination no matter how sweet and delicious people think it tastes.
You can drink antifreeze, no one is stopping you, but wine makers aren't allowed to use it to increase potency!
> You have this idea in your head the majority has the right to rule all,
no i said that the majority rules as long as society is complicit with their rule
> and as long as the government represents the majority then there is no limit to how pervasive government can be in our society.
well, this is technically true, government will grow and grow up to the point of revolution. this is by design.
> You are wrong.
if you think that i think that majority rule has a natural right to rule any way that they like in defiance of the minority then you are wrong. I have repeatedly said at that point the government will fail due to revolt.
> You say there is nothing higher than government. I say there is nothing higher than individual rights.
I have repeatedly said that it is the collective will of the people expressed through their actions that is the most powerful and highest authority. Not the government itself which is nothing more than the bureaucratic underpinnings
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 18 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #464,346
@previous (squeegee !first/o5zA)
Saying that a government is justified in their rule until it finally reaches a tipping point where a violent uprising is required to overthrow the government, which may or may not be successful and may unnecessarily cost lives, is like saying that thieves, murderers, and rapists are justified in their crimes until they are finally caught and dealt with. Most people are pissed off at their government and do not consent to what their government forces them to do, but have to deal with it because they are powerless to do otherwise, not because the majority of society consents. Governments know that the majority does not consent, but uses propaganda and indoctrination to make everyone believe they are powerless to prevent them from standing together.
As to your murder and rapists example, I was referring to the rights of individuals to be left alone and to do whatever they wish as long as it does not directly interfere with the rights of others. Rapists, thieves, and murderers do not fall in this category. Lrn2 negative rights.
Saying that a government is justified in their rule until it finally reaches a tipping point where a violent uprising is required to overthrow the government, which may or may not be successful and may unnecessarily cost lives, is like saying that thieves, murderers, and rapists are justified in their crimes until they are finally caught and dealt with. Most people are pissed off at their government and do not consent to what their government forces them to do, but have to deal with it because they are powerless to do otherwise, not because the majority of society consents. Governments know that the majority does not consent, but uses propaganda and indoctrination to make everyone believe they are powerless to prevent them from standing together.
As to your murder and rapists example, I was referring to the rights of individuals to be left alone and to do whatever they wish as long as it does not directly interfere with the rights of others. Rapists, thieves, and murderers do not fall in this category. Lrn2 negative rights.
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 12 years ago, 35 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #464,351
@previous (A)
> Saying that a government is justified in their rule until it finally reaches a tipping point where a violent uprising is required to overthrow the government, which may or may not be successful and may unnecessarily cost lives, is like saying that thieves, murderers, and rapists are justified in their crimes until they are finally caught and dealt with.
I am not saying it is justified, i am saying this is what happens. This is what gets repeated over and over throughout history. We keep creating newer governments and they always fail when they eventually get to be oppressive. It is the cycle we can't break out of because human nature.
> Most people are pissed off at their government and do not consent to what their government forces them to do, but have to deal with it because they are powerless to do otherwise, not because the majority of society consents.
what about protests though, like the civil rights movement. That wasn't people tacitly consenting. That was marching in the streets and fighting an oppressive overbearing governmental structure. And they didn't have to deal with it, they won. Also, as a result of this, there are laws and regulation in place that make it illegal to discriminate in circumstances where otherwise you'd have your own water fountain. society progresses, government expands.
> Governments know that the majority does not consent, but uses propaganda and indoctrination to make everyone believe they are powerless to prevent them from standing together.
people got jobs, yo. we can't be out protesting in the streets over, what? food additive regulations? fuck that noise. things just aren't that bad here that people want to have a revolution. Let things get "that bad" though and people will take to the streets. just like they've done all of history.
> As to your murder and rapists example, I was referring to the rights of individuals to be left alone and to do whatever they wish as long as it does not directly interfere with the rights of others. Rapists, thieves, and murderers do not fall in this category. Lrn2 negative rights.
yes, but "whatever you wish as long as it doesn't directly interfere with the rights of others" is only half the issue. Should you be allowed to violate your own rights? Let's say everyone has a natural right to life, then should you be allowed to suicide just because it "doesn't directly interfere with the rights of others?" And can a person actually kill themselves without affecting someone else?
I remember from ethics that there is no action you can take, not a one, that doesn't in some how, some way, directly effect another person.
> Saying that a government is justified in their rule until it finally reaches a tipping point where a violent uprising is required to overthrow the government, which may or may not be successful and may unnecessarily cost lives, is like saying that thieves, murderers, and rapists are justified in their crimes until they are finally caught and dealt with.
I am not saying it is justified, i am saying this is what happens. This is what gets repeated over and over throughout history. We keep creating newer governments and they always fail when they eventually get to be oppressive. It is the cycle we can't break out of because human nature.
> Most people are pissed off at their government and do not consent to what their government forces them to do, but have to deal with it because they are powerless to do otherwise, not because the majority of society consents.
what about protests though, like the civil rights movement. That wasn't people tacitly consenting. That was marching in the streets and fighting an oppressive overbearing governmental structure. And they didn't have to deal with it, they won. Also, as a result of this, there are laws and regulation in place that make it illegal to discriminate in circumstances where otherwise you'd have your own water fountain. society progresses, government expands.
> Governments know that the majority does not consent, but uses propaganda and indoctrination to make everyone believe they are powerless to prevent them from standing together.
people got jobs, yo. we can't be out protesting in the streets over, what? food additive regulations? fuck that noise. things just aren't that bad here that people want to have a revolution. Let things get "that bad" though and people will take to the streets. just like they've done all of history.
> As to your murder and rapists example, I was referring to the rights of individuals to be left alone and to do whatever they wish as long as it does not directly interfere with the rights of others. Rapists, thieves, and murderers do not fall in this category. Lrn2 negative rights.
yes, but "whatever you wish as long as it doesn't directly interfere with the rights of others" is only half the issue. Should you be allowed to violate your own rights? Let's say everyone has a natural right to life, then should you be allowed to suicide just because it "doesn't directly interfere with the rights of others?" And can a person actually kill themselves without affecting someone else?
I remember from ethics that there is no action you can take, not a one, that doesn't in some how, some way, directly effect another person.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 14 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #464,352
I understand that that's how it is, but your political philosophy seems to revolve around the idea that that's how it should be. You know, the whole is vs ought thing. That's the point I'm making. People aren't really consenting. It's not really ideal for it to have to reach a tipping point where people start going nuts and making serious sacrifices to make things right. Yet, your whole political philosophy is "Since the people haven't stood up and overthrown them yet, then the majority must be OK with it and that's all that matters". That's not OK. That's not all that matters. It's not a good assumption. That's like saying poor people must be OK with being poor because they're not murdering people for food or money yet.
And yes, I do believe people have a right to commit suicide. Yes, I do realize it may affect those around them, but not directly. Committing suicide does not require the consent of others. My right to do what I want with my life, even if that means taking it, outweighs discomfort it may cause others. To say otherwise is to say that I do not own my own life. That others have the right to force me to do or not do certain things in order to protect their comfort and that is slavery.
And yes, I do believe people have a right to commit suicide. Yes, I do realize it may affect those around them, but not directly. Committing suicide does not require the consent of others. My right to do what I want with my life, even if that means taking it, outweighs discomfort it may cause others. To say otherwise is to say that I do not own my own life. That others have the right to force me to do or not do certain things in order to protect their comfort and that is slavery.
Anonymous B replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #464,353
@464,223 (Metæ)
> During feudalism didn't the landowners have to contribute soldiers and/or money to the king?
Well, that was sort of an issue. The landowners were nominally subject to the king (emperor, whatever), but until the king (and perhaps his army) actually came to call on that promise, they really didn't have to worry about much. They ruled their local realm. If there were an actual war, they would certainly levy soldiers from the masses and say they had done their duty. Sometimes a king wasn't actually strong enough to come demand all the revenue the landowner had been collecting in the king's name. Politics then must have been fun, but instead of noble families courting royalty, we have corporations courting governments based in geographic areas. These entities that wield local power want to act autonomously, but align themselves against the entrenched power structure to push back against what they see as threats to their autonomy. In this struggle, the actual people are lost; they're seen as units of exchange. That same power struggle seems to be playing out again between the haves and the have-mores. Obviously, the rich are too poor, and the poor are too rich. Maybe I'm just being pessimistic.
> During feudalism didn't the landowners have to contribute soldiers and/or money to the king?
Well, that was sort of an issue. The landowners were nominally subject to the king (emperor, whatever), but until the king (and perhaps his army) actually came to call on that promise, they really didn't have to worry about much. They ruled their local realm. If there were an actual war, they would certainly levy soldiers from the masses and say they had done their duty. Sometimes a king wasn't actually strong enough to come demand all the revenue the landowner had been collecting in the king's name. Politics then must have been fun, but instead of noble families courting royalty, we have corporations courting governments based in geographic areas. These entities that wield local power want to act autonomously, but align themselves against the entrenched power structure to push back against what they see as threats to their autonomy. In this struggle, the actual people are lost; they're seen as units of exchange. That same power struggle seems to be playing out again between the haves and the have-mores. Obviously, the rich are too poor, and the poor are too rich. Maybe I'm just being pessimistic.
Anonymous I replied with this 12 years ago, 1 day later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #464,441
@464,351 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
> Should you be allowed to violate your own rights?
Rights are property in the legal sense. So of course I should have the right to dispose of something that belongs to me.
But it's pointless debate. People have been working for monopoly money idols for decades now, allowing real property to be stolen in an esoteric way by the PTB. Those of us outside this priesthood have no rights to property, only the privilege of rewards for serving the system. I'm sure they'll find a way to tax us for committing suicide soon enough.
The human intellect has deteriorated to that of an insect, and consequently, we're destined for a similar social structure of universal slavery and soulless utilitarianism.
> Should you be allowed to violate your own rights?
Rights are property in the legal sense. So of course I should have the right to dispose of something that belongs to me.
But it's pointless debate. People have been working for monopoly money idols for decades now, allowing real property to be stolen in an esoteric way by the PTB. Those of us outside this priesthood have no rights to property, only the privilege of rewards for serving the system. I'm sure they'll find a way to tax us for committing suicide soon enough.
The human intellect has deteriorated to that of an insect, and consequently, we're destined for a similar social structure of universal slavery and soulless utilitarianism.
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 16 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #464,510
@464,329 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
Also, not even Elizabeth Warren thinks Glass-Steagall would have prevented the crisis.
When I called Ms. Warren and pressed her about whether she thought the financial crisis or JPMorgan’s losses could have been avoided if Glass-Steagall were in place, she conceded: “The answer is probably ‘No’ to both.”
In my conversation with Ms. Warren she told me that one of the reasons she’s been pushing reinstating Glass-Steagall — even if it wouldn’t have prevented the financial crisis — is that it is an easy issue for the public to understand and “you can build public attention behind.”
She added that she considers Glass-Steagall more of a symbol of what needs to happen to regulations than the specifics related to the act itself.
The repeal of Glass-Steagall makes a good talking point (just like blaming the CRA does at Fox News) but it's not really true.
Also, not even Elizabeth Warren thinks Glass-Steagall would have prevented the crisis.
When I called Ms. Warren and pressed her about whether she thought the financial crisis or JPMorgan’s losses could have been avoided if Glass-Steagall were in place, she conceded: “The answer is probably ‘No’ to both.”
In my conversation with Ms. Warren she told me that one of the reasons she’s been pushing reinstating Glass-Steagall — even if it wouldn’t have prevented the financial crisis — is that it is an easy issue for the public to understand and “you can build public attention behind.”
She added that she considers Glass-Steagall more of a symbol of what needs to happen to regulations than the specifics related to the act itself.
The repeal of Glass-Steagall makes a good talking point (just like blaming the CRA does at Fox News) but it's not really true.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Metæ double-posted this 12 years ago, 28 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #464,514
@464,329 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
Obama doesn't think Glass-Steagall would have helped, either:
I've looked at some of Rolling Stone's articles that say, "This didn't go far enough, we didn't institute Glass-Steagall" and so forth, and I pushed my economic team very hard on some of those questions. But there is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic. Lehman Brothers wasn't a commercial bank, it was an investment bank. AIG wasn't an FDIC-insured bank, it was an insurance institution. So the problem in today's financial sector can't be solved simply by reimposing models that were created in the 1930s.
Obama doesn't think Glass-Steagall would have helped, either:
I've looked at some of Rolling Stone's articles that say, "This didn't go far enough, we didn't institute Glass-Steagall" and so forth, and I pushed my economic team very hard on some of those questions. But there is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic. Lehman Brothers wasn't a commercial bank, it was an investment bank. AIG wasn't an FDIC-insured bank, it was an insurance institution. So the problem in today's financial sector can't be solved simply by reimposing models that were created in the 1930s.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 12 years ago, 8 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #464,516
@464,441 (I)
> Rights are property in the legal sense.
I'm fairly sure that this doesn't make any sense. Could you clarify? Where exactly is the part of US Code, or any code that recognizes rights as property?
It makes no sense to me. I get that you can waive your rights, if you so choose. But that doesn't make them property... Do I have to pay property tax on on my rights now??? Shit! I have to call my tax lawyer!
EDIT: My tax lawyer told me that my rights are not, in fact taxable as property. *sigh* Minichan, you always could get me to waste money on this stupid shit.
> Rights are property in the legal sense.
I'm fairly sure that this doesn't make any sense. Could you clarify? Where exactly is the part of US Code, or any code that recognizes rights as property?
It makes no sense to me. I get that you can waive your rights, if you so choose. But that doesn't make them property... Do I have to pay property tax on on my rights now??? Shit! I have to call my tax lawyer!
EDIT: My tax lawyer told me that my rights are not, in fact taxable as property. *sigh* Minichan, you always could get me to waste money on this stupid shit.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous I replied with this 12 years ago, 6 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #464,537
@previous (B)
Rights are inalienable as they are intrinsic and wholly owned, not granted. In other words, they are an extension of that property which is mine.
Every system ever which failed to respect personal property rights has led to human rights violations and the implosion of civil society via tragedies of the commons. There can be no rights without a definition of property to which they apply.
The 'property is theft' mentality of collectivists is the very reason we hear intellectual BS about our human rights being intertwined. Asking if I should be allowed to commit suicide when that decision affects others, who allegedly have some need for the positive externalities of my being alive, is the extreme height of such idiocy.
The idea that my suicide 'steals' from others is the same nonsense as arguing private homes 'steal' resources from the homeless. The right to life cannot be coupled with an obligation to live, as one necessarily infringes the other.
The Ethics of Liberty explains such concepts brilliantly. Here's an excerpt: http://mises.org/daily/2569
Rights are inalienable as they are intrinsic and wholly owned, not granted. In other words, they are an extension of that property which is mine.
Every system ever which failed to respect personal property rights has led to human rights violations and the implosion of civil society via tragedies of the commons. There can be no rights without a definition of property to which they apply.
The 'property is theft' mentality of collectivists is the very reason we hear intellectual BS about our human rights being intertwined. Asking if I should be allowed to commit suicide when that decision affects others, who allegedly have some need for the positive externalities of my being alive, is the extreme height of such idiocy.
The idea that my suicide 'steals' from others is the same nonsense as arguing private homes 'steal' resources from the homeless. The right to life cannot be coupled with an obligation to live, as one necessarily infringes the other.
The Ethics of Liberty explains such concepts brilliantly. Here's an excerpt: http://mises.org/daily/2569
floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 6 days later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #465,832
so... anyone notice what happened in the ukraine? something about the people no longer consenting to being governed and overthrowing their corrupt leadership?
I haven't been paying attention. maybe someone can explain it to me in terms of how the government is more powerful than the filthy overpowering mob.
I haven't been paying attention. maybe someone can explain it to me in terms of how the government is more powerful than the filthy overpowering mob.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 21 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #465,834
Corporations are all fucked up.
It's a legal fiction whose real purpose is to cap maximum potential losses at the maximum value of corporate assets, as opposed to the maximum value of investor's assets. Such a scam can only result in an irrational willingness to take on excessive risk. It's basically a license to do evil with a government pledge to protect you from the potentially infinite expense associated with doing so.
And the fucked up thing, you can't possibly compete with the scammers without getting in on the scam yourself. So obviously, all production is destined to go corporate eventually and full on fascism is the only logical endgame.
It's a legal fiction whose real purpose is to cap maximum potential losses at the maximum value of corporate assets, as opposed to the maximum value of investor's assets. Such a scam can only result in an irrational willingness to take on excessive risk. It's basically a license to do evil with a government pledge to protect you from the potentially infinite expense associated with doing so.
And the fucked up thing, you can't possibly compete with the scammers without getting in on the scam yourself. So obviously, all production is destined to go corporate eventually and full on fascism is the only logical endgame.
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 14 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #466,035
