Discussion in 'News and Current Events' started by Anonymous, Feb 26, 2011.
We have seen per L.Ron, all you have to do is convince people of their innate superiority and homo novusness. Under the pervasive belief of exceptionalism seems you can get just about anyone to do anything-most of it not in their best interest.
Sometimes I wonder how many here 'get' the lessons that scientology is teaching us as far as power structure and crowd control. It seems apparent that they are but a microcosm of a larger system, one they turned inward to their own purposes.
If anyone is here because they consider themselves somehow superior to those poor fools in sea org, they should examine the facts again. There are more people out to dupe you and steal your time and money and more religions than the ones that deal with 'gods'.
Oh yes. The world is made of bullshit, top to bottom.
In addition to teaching 5th graders to beware their own spite, I would want them to know of the "Spock vs McCoy" trick, or the Dead Agenting of reason. Basically, positive emotions such as compassion, trust, love, a sense of goodness, etc., are called "heart" or something like that, and contrasted to "head" or "mind," which is branded as cold, calculating, and "heartless." If you fall for this trick, you can be made to vote for anyone.
Head and heart are not opposites; they're friends. Heart is "measure once, cut once." Head is, "measure twice, cut once."
Or the Co$....
Their demands will require that non government workers assume their burden while they share equally in roads and other services creating an uneven payment system in government. They are not more entitled than any other citizen. Meanwhile they are not going to work, and it is costing the state and its citizens millions of dollars in double pay for not only their paychecks but the paychecks for the substitutes they need to hire to keep schools and other agencies running.[/quote]
Read this summation by a Pulitzer prize-winning tax specialist and then tell me again how much the public are contributing to the pensions of these employees: http://tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/UBEN-8EDJYS?OpenDocument
"The fact is that all of the money going into these plans belongs to the workers because it is part of the compensation of the state workers. The fact is that the state workers negotiate their total compensation, which they then divvy up between cash wages, paid vacations, health insurance and, yes, pensions. Since the Wisconsin government workers collectively bargained for their compensation, all of the compensation they have bargained for is part of their pay and thus only the workers contribute to the pension plan. This is an indisputable fact. "
It's reality. Once you get used to it, it's not so bad.
Hopeless idealism always leads to tyranny
I think Koch and his ilk look at Mexico and get jealous of what the super rich can do there. So they are trying to bring down our system to that level. Bust up the unions, blur the line between the government a corporations (deregulation, privatization), then they just keep under reporting crime so things get so bad for the average person they are so worried about getting shot or gang raped they don't have time for politics... While they say "but the numbers show crime at an all time low!"
These two make Randolph and Mortimer Duke from "Trading Places" look like choir boys.
Kool-aid comes in many flavors. This rant could use a little fact-checking.
Oh hai David Koch!
Indisputable until you discover that any shortfall of the plan is to made up by the taxpayer.
In other words. if the promised compensation was unreasonably high, or the investments didn't pay off as planned, Or if the money gets skimmed off in some fashion -- the responsibility to meet the promised benefits falls squarely on the taxpayer.
promised compensation was unreasonable high?.... the tax payer is forking over the entire amount any way, they are public employees...
I'll disagree with grebe and agree with adhocrat (even if it means posting against my economic interests) on this minor point.
Government imo, is inherently suppressive. That's not always a bad thing.
The chief function of government is to set up rules and guidelines for orderly behavior where people might be inclined to act in their apparent self-interest chaotically (since their individual self-interests often don't neatly line up in a purely anarchic society).
Many of the rules are inhibitory or suppressive. We're discouraged from killing and raeping people. We're discouraged from peeing in the pool.
We're discouraged from shouting, yelling and making a ruckus, although there are carefully delineated exceptions where shouting, yelling and ruckus making are permitted or encouraged.
(note: the U.S. has very broad exceptions; so many that the inhibition of speech is more regulated than its expression.)
Some of the suppressive character of governance is inherently harmful. Limits on what we are permitted to do, make people unhappy. Trying to match up various competing systems of rights gets tricky, and what we get in the end is neither the most efficient nor the most equitable.
When politicians become MOAR corrupt than the baseline, the mapping of rights and restrictions becomes more lopsided. What you get isn't so much "more suppression" but a gradual shift from suppressing certain sets of things to suppressing a different set of things. Sometimes, removing restrictive rules results in broad perception of increased freedom. (e.g. Suffrage for non-white and non-males) Sometimes, removing restrictive rules results in massive abridgment of rights and widespread harm, spawned by people who don't behave responsibly without a law telling them to.
Adding restrictive rules sometimes helps. FDA regulating medical products caused the demise of a HUGE snake-oil industry, and improved safety and quality for all. Some FDA decisions are poorly-chosen, and our less-free drug market is less innovative than it was in the 19th century, for sure. Regulating drugs for quality, safety and medical standardization is messy business but on the whole has given good results. Regulating them for moral or ethical purposes leaves a lot more unhappy faces and fewer good results.
Without a suppressive government, you get Somalia.
America without a government would be a high-tech Somalia, with the seas patrolled by Xenubarb and her pirate navy.
CONSTRAINTS on government are necessary. Without those, government devolves into a corporatist-fascist system like 1930s Germany.
IMO, the USSR had more constraints on its government, but those fetters were weak and useless. The Soviet model was economically insufficient, and bound to fail sooner or later. The corporatist-fascist model - could well have survived longer, as its more agile and more invasive (oddly enough).
Choosing the right constraints is difficult, and judging how well they are work is nearly impossible (imo). But judging them and adjusting is something we need to do constantly, no matter how difficult or frustrating.
I guess, I sorta kinda agree with both of you guys :S
Its likely that you and I will disagree on the details of which suppressive features of our government suck and should be removed, and which should be enhanced. I'm not satisfied or happy with our current model of governance, but its far easier to design a worse than a better one.
(that is, to design a system that's actually workable. Failed designs are the shitpile of history)
Since when has cops ever answered to the people?
Well in Wisconsin they are backing protesters, knowing full well that if collective bargaining is taken from the teachers their union will be next.
Which brings up the question that if public workers shouldn't be allowed unions and collective bargaining is such a horrible thing, why didn't Walker go after the police and firedepartment's unions?
Police and fire fighters are heroes.
They save lives.
Public school teachers are really just pimples providing daycare for little monsters until they pop.
Most of them would be better off apprenticed to a skilled profession
instead of being bored to tears, learning crap that nobody cares about.
Here's some data that might make you think...
This 8th grade test from 1895 is a lot harder than anything our 8th graders are being taught now. Does that mean we are this much dumber than our grandparents and great grandparents? Doesn't make sense, now does it. Why are schools teaching so much less now than 100 years ago. I'll give you a hint, the government starting taking over the schools about then.
The money follows the student not the school.
Cute. And right back atcha
The point is that all governments eventually become corrupt unless we, the citizens are able to exercise oversight. That becomes hard when, eg, the government calls wikileaks a terrorist threat.
That might be the difference between our way of thinking. I don't want to change human nature, I want to set up a System where human nature is channeled into socially useful acts and goals.
Is freedom an ideology?
And you do understand it is the government, not the corporations, that are blurring the line?
Providing a few comments from blog Re: article about the DDos attack on Koch Brothers web site:
Of course pro koch troll as in response to the above comment:
And this one:
This guy is really out there in Tea Bagger land:
ANYWAY, my point is all & all very similar to comments here!
However, its REALLY not about political parties (Koch Bro's want to keep us divided) its REALLY about billionaires & corporations breaking up the middle class!
Anonymous is a left wing group now according to the afp site.
AFP sucks kochs.
Well yeah. My point wasn't so much, "is government suppressive?" but rather, "all relationships are suppressive." People trade away a degree of personal freedom for the sake of maintaining some relationship.
The libertarians bug me because they focus on one corporation --government-- to the exclusion of all the other corporations. Any relationship between an individual and a crazy-ass powerful entity will be prone to abuses of power.
Less government can mean less freedom. A weaker sherrif can mean a stronger crime boss. A weaker FDA and FTC means a stronger Kevin Trudeau and the "freedom" to have your local hospital run by scammers.
Personally I'm just anti-bullshit. If some right wing people interpret my position as anti-right, that's pretty lulzy.
The Maffia takes over.
Are you a Hippy living in a Commune ?
When ever I hear, "So-and-so Incorporated didn't pay a penny in taxes!" I'm like, "So what?" If the company obeyed the tax laws it's doin it rite.
Usually the "OMG didn't pay any taxes!" propaganda is presented in such a way as to imply that some fat cats ran off to Vegas in a private jet stocked with hookers and blow. But a company cannot screw hookers because it has not sexual organs.
When a company makes a lot of money but pays no taxes that means the company paid a lot of people who then paid Uncle Sam a lot of personal income taxes.
UK Uncut first started organizing calling big corprations & banks on their tax cuts:
Which promoted the US Uncut:
sure, if you that's what you want to think, go for it.
LOL, you are funny Are you a militia member living in the woods practicing with fire arms ?
This tells me that you don't understand libertarianism. And conflating corporation with government tells me you don't understand the difference between a voluntary relationship and a relationship based on force.
It really depends on how much less. But then, I was never advocating getting rid of the police. See below for more.
What I didn't understand was the non sequitor. I have never advocated doing away with the police. In fact, the police are one of the few legitimate functions of a government.
I'm a Birkenstock wearing, long haired, phreak phlag waving hippie living in a militia commune where we grow soy beans and practice with AK47s while reading Heather Has Two Mommies to the kids before giving them a sugarless treat before beddie bye.
EDIT: I forgot the moonshine we run. Can't forget that
sure, if that's what you want to believe. You keep coming to odd conclusions based on your misunderstanding of what I am saying. Am I supposed to take that seriously?
In woman's rights to abortion,
To people's rights to firearms
To complete drug legalization
To marriage between men, women or men and women
The freedom to enter into voluntary association with people
Freedom of speech, religion and association and the rest of the Bill of Rights
The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I don't believe in the right of someone to tell me that I have to pay for their generosity.
I also believe in treating all people with respect and dignity, (with tongue planted firmly in cheek) even when they are so totaly wrong as to be mind boggling
I suppose that makes me too outre to be true, eh?
adhocrat, I'm sorta joking by stealing the Scilon word "suppressive." What I mean is compromise. When you are part of a relationship you cannot do just as you please, or the relationship won't last very long. You must take into account the needs of the other party.
The government is much like a non-profit corporation. Any corporation big enough can squish me like a bug. It's the squishing, not the word used to describe the squisher, that matters.
can you give ma tl:dr
for non US?
Ah, OK. that I can totally agree with. Compromise is indeed an important part of living,
So, in a society where the politicians didn't have the ability to craft laws that helped their people, could big not be bad? FOr example, Rockefeller is pilloried today for being a robber baron, and yet he brought the price of oil down to a price the average person could afford.
I recently read that an oil refinery produces oil at less than half the cost when the refinery is twice as big. So that would be a good thing.
To me, it is when the government favors one gorup over another that fairness flies out the window. It is not the size of the company, but the System the company is in that makes a big difference.
After recently reading Zimbardo's The Lucifer Effect, I've decided he makes a great case for his metaphor: There are apples, barrels, and systems. Bad apples come from bad barrels which come from bad systems. Think the Stanford Prison Experiment or Abu Ghairab.
Someone pretending to be far right billionaire David Koch phoned the governor of Wisconsin (WI) and caught him talking about illegal ways to break up the state employees union. A lot of people in WI are pissed off.
Some anons want to go after the Kochs for their abuse of power. Because there are both rightist and leftist anons within the hive, it's not clear how this discussion will pan out.
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!