American Politics

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Didn't some one in your history say that only America could defeat America?

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: BarbarossaLook at the US deficit when a Republican leaves office versus a Democrat, especially since Reagan's destructive philosophy.quote>

I can see where you're coming from, but the correlation is anything but absolute. And the sample size is small enough that the statistical significance of the difference is questionable.

EDIT:  Linkie.quote>

Oy. Congress actually attempts to do something constructive for once, and they fail. Figures.

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

Didn't some one in your history say that only America could defeat America?

quote>

It's a common phrase among civil liberties activists. Whether or not it can be attributed to a specific author, I don't know. But there is definitely some truth to it.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

For a definitive essay on the destruction of an imperial power see Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.  They most certainly polluted their principles and destroyed themselves, and it really didn't take long after Gaius Marius set the tone for dictatorship.

One of the noted principles that was upset was to elect the Senate of Rome, rather than have inherited titled land owners.  I seem to remember that in the U.S. Senate elections came in around 1929.  Fasten your seat belt.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The Hungarians are going to nationalize that company, so the next CEO will be a bureaucrab.

Hungary is a small, mature country.  They can take this kind of action because the government is the biggest corporation in the country.

What do you suppose would happen if Obama and Co. tried to nationalize Halliburton?  Or for that matter, any of the Wall Street thieves?

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Can of worms.

Realistically, though, I do not support complete government ownership of key industries. At the same time, I think that certain industries should have heavy-handed regulation by the government. The problem is a changing world, poor education, and ideology.

I personally believe that industry related to natural resources should be controlled by the government (aka, regulated - they belong to the taxpayer, not the mining company). As a taxpayer, I also think that key economic industries and industries that have a large impact on the populace, should be regulated. This would include banking, telecommunications and general broadcasting, not to mention education and health. Now, with health, we have a lot of work to do, because there are too many selfish idiots who don't want to support the downtrodden in our society, who seem to think we will actually be stronger if we focus on ourselves (literally, on our own self).

This is an imperfect post, mainly off the top of my head. Consider it an invitation to further conversation.

Barbarossaquote>

OK.  Let's cite a few examples here.

In Canada the Ministry of Mines and Natural Resources is responsible for exploitation licensing and safety in these workplaces, but it is a divided command.  The Minister of Industry, Trade, and Commerce has most of the other half with the exception of the stuff handled by the Ministry of State and its department of export controls, etc.  There have always been some tough regulations, and after the Springhill, NS coal mine disaster it has been even tougher.

The Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans has closed the cod fishery in Canada, and you ought to hear the screaming on the east coast.  The Mounties and the Coast Guard enforce this, and any foreign vessel found poaching in our waters is usually arrested and brought into port.  We have seized several ships, and we still have them rusting away.  Some countries get the message and pony up the fines to get their vessels released.  Getting the crews back is pretty simple under the general Law of the Sea conventions.

Softwood lumber is one of the big items that the Industry guys regulate by charging stumpage fees.  All the forests here pretty much belong to the crown.  The Ministry of the Environment watches this like a hawk.  If you cut, you must replant.  Clear cutting is frowned upon with some substantial fines for being a jerk.  The Forestry guys in each province get quite excited about loggers who don't obey the rules, and especially when there is danger of a fire.  We have enough natural forest fires as it is.  {aside}Some forest fires are necessary for the health of the forests, but these are watched very carefully to be sure they don't turn into wild-fires. {/aside}.  Currently there are litigations going on between the US and Canada over softwood lumber, and we have won a case in the WTO.  Parks Canada gets in this act sometimes by issuing very carefully worded cutting permits in the national parks like Algonquin, which needs harvesting for its health.

Banks are regulated under the rather Draconian Bank Act of 1936 as amended to modernize.  There was a time when owning a bank's shares was quite risky as there was a double jeopardy clause that said if a bank failed, the shareholders had to pay for their shares all over again.  That has gone by the board, but with the Bank of Canada administering this, you'd have to be a Canadian Banker (me, for instance) to have any kind of handle on how we do this.  You'll notice that we weren't much affected by the shenanigans recently in Wall Street.d  The powers of the Bank of Canada over Schedule A Banks (only they can have branches), are pretty tough.  The BofC can order the banks to deposit more reserve with them on a few hours notice.  This is not actionable in any court.

The Canadian Radio and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) controls the airwaves absolutely.  If you don't have a license from them, you are shut down.  That includes pseudo-broadcasters such as Cable-TV, and ISPs.  It is a huge bureaucrabcy, and they have a lot of power over content.  If the Internet were to be regulated in Canada, these are the guys who are equipped to do it.  Currently, the reins are held very lightly, but a snap of the wrist, and the ISPs would have to say, "Yes, Sir.  How high?", on the way up.  On the other hand, I have a permanent license to use marine radio VHF.  I currently don't have a station, so no station license.  Once you qualify for this, it is for life.  Not bad for a highly regulated area, eh?  If I were to acquire a boat with a radio, it is a mere formality to get it licensed to me and either transfer or get a new call sign.

Doesn't sound like a free country does it?  Well, we value our freedom as much as any other people.  However, corporations are definitely not quite equal in our law.  They are artificial beings, and always will be.  We know it.  They know it, and if they forget it, there are sharp, pointed reminders.

[Yoman3 5]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

 Now, with health, we have a lot of work to do, because there are too many selfish idiots who don't want to support the downtrodden in our society, who seem to think we will actually be stronger if we focus on ourselves (literally, on our own self).

quote>

I'm a selfish person, what gives you the right to tell me to be charitable?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: Yoman3

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

 Now, with health, we have a lot of work to do, because there are too many selfish idiots who don't want to support the downtrodden in our society, who seem to think we will actually be stronger if we focus on ourselves (literally, on our own self).

quote>

I'm a selfish person, what gives you the right to tell me to be charitable?

quote>

Well, if you are in the US, I suppose its the First Amendment.  You don't have to listen, eh?

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

On a more pleasant topic, it seems the White House is hosting the student winners of a big science competition today.  Maybe Obama can use the leverage here to encourage more investment in science.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Originally posted by: Yoman3

I'm a selfish person, what gives you the right to tell me to be charitable?quote>

You live in New York (aka, you are in America);  don't you think that is a rather silly question?  I have every right to say what is on my mind,quote>

There is a difference between speaking your mind and forcing your opinion on others. The first amendment protects your right to say I should be charitable. It does not give you the right to force me to be charitable (which is a contradiction anyway - charity by definition must be voluntary).

unless you are one of those Tea Baggers that thinks the Bill of Rights isn't part of our national setup, or only applies when you agree with it.quote>

Uh... wait, what?  Exactly what part of the Tea Party platform goes against the Bill of Rights?

Name me one single country that is a successful Libertarian playground. There isn't one.quote>

Name me one single country that has ever been a failed Libertarian playground. There isn't one.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Sometime both of you should see wiki's article on Libertarianism.  It seems to be in dispute, and there is a long talk page about it.

I personally see Libertarianism and Anarchy in the same sort of light.  Both are selfish, and are of the "Up yours, Jack, I'm inboard" attitude.  The quote has been bowdlerized from the original quote having to do with drowning men trying to get into an overloaded lifeboat.  Many drowned men in a sea accident are found with deck spike marks on their shoulders.  This indicates that someone stood on their shoulders while they drowned, probably trying to reach the surface.

I think this thread has talked anarchy to its absurd limits, and I would like to avoid a rehash of the same stuff with repect to Libertariansim since it is a political dead end.

Meanwhile, your off-year election is approaching.  What is interesting this time?  The Republicans are making a strong effort to take the majority in both houses.  Would kind of cripple the executive, eh?

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Look up Christine O'Donnel questioning the Separation of Church and State. C'mon, you know she is a Golden Child for Tea-baggers.quote>

Christine O'Donnell is an idiot. No argument there.

However, she is right about this much: the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear anywhere in the constitution. The argument could be made that while the first amendment says that the government cannot establish a religion - that is, make laws that infringe upon people's right to worship as they choose - it does not say that government and religion can have absolutely nothing to do with each other (see: "freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion").

So, there is at least no conflict with the letter of the Bill of Rights. As for the spirit of it... well, different people have different opinions of just what that is, so we cannot say yes or no on a factual basis. I don't like the sentiment of the argument (in this case, anyway), but I cannot factually prove it wrong. I can only say that in my opinion I do not approve. And since everyone is innocent unless proven guilty... we cannot, fairly, consider this to be a Bill of Rights violation.

Originally posted by: Duke87

Name me one single country that has ever been a failed Libertarian playground. There isn't one.quote>

Gee, could that be because one never existed? Wonder of wonders. You have to have one to get one, dude.quote>

Exactly. If it's never been tried, how can you prove that it won't work?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

My dear Bararossa, I didn't have the luxury of such an upbrining.  There was a war on, and the country was rationed.  In a certain sense, you could say that thinking was rationed too.  The war ended when I was in Grade 3, but its effects lasted until I at least hit high-school.  And then we had the Korean War (er, Police Action).  While rationing was easing up, our guys were still getting shot at overseas, and we very nearly lost that one.  It was a good thing you had some battle hardened people in Tokyo, including MacArthur, who should have simply had an honored retirement and not be put in a spot where his megalomanic tendencies got him fired.

The principles engraved on the Statue of Liberty were pretty much what Canadians thought about the United States, and of course, you are our brothers.  We did not, and still do not have time for this Libertarian nonsense.  Freedom is not free, and those of us who helped pay the price know it full well.  I lost several relatives and friends in the War to End All Wars, including my Uncle Azel who was a U.S. Marine.  Then, a lot of people I knew in high school got a case of "gone to Korea" and didn't come back.  When you are 17, a lot of this really sinks in, finally.

The effect of all this is that I firmly believe in a hierarchical government structure, and I don't have time for the "wouldn't it be wonderful" Libertarian crowd.  If you think this is "silly" walk a mile in my shoes in 1948.  You'll have an attitude adjustment or two.  I agree with Patrick Henry.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

I am old, Barbarossa, I sit in the sun,

And I want to, but can't stand on my head.

In my youth, I attempted to scatter my brains,

But now, that I am sure that I have none,

I consider the past once again.

 

With apologies to Charles Lutwidge Dodson

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

You realize, of course, that the Bill of Right never says you can own a handgun or a bazooka, either, eh?  You can possess (bear) them.  Nothing about ownership.quote>

Saying that something cannot be taken away from someone directly implies ownership. Besides, if I don't own the gun that it is my right to possess, then who does?

Besides, a lot of folks seem to forget that the Bill of Rights came much later than the actual Constitution, and it came under pressure.quote>

A gap of two years is hardly "much later". As for "under pressure"... well, yes, some states refused to ratify the constitution without a promise that a bill of rights would be created. Your point?

A country of "only men" has also never been attempted, but everyone in their right mind knows it won't work.quote>

Nobody has ever attempted to create a state of anarchy, yes, but nonetheless they have existed throughout history in cases where the government has proven too weak to maintain control. Just look at Somalia. So, yes, we do in fact have case studies which demonstrate that anarchy doesn't work.

Selfishness can never make a country that succeeds, let alone lasts.quote>

If that were true, then civilization would not exist. It is, after all, impossible to not be selfish.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: Duke87

If that were true, then civilization would not exist. It is, after all, impossible to not be selfish.

quote>

Tell that to Mother Teresa.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

You realize, of course, that the Bill of Right never says you can own a handgun or a bazooka, either, eh?  You can possess (bear) them.  Nothing about ownership.quote>

Saying that something cannot be taken away from someone directly implies ownership. Besides, if I don't own the gun that it is my right to possess, then who does? quote>

Perhaps that well regulated Militia that is mentioned in the second amendment?

A soldier in the army bears, possesses, maintains, and uses his firearms but he does not own them.  The army does.

(I almost started saying something else but remembered we already have the The Official Second Amendment / Gun Ban Thread.  )

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

Originally posted by: Duke87

If that were true, then civilization would not exist. It is, after all, impossible to not be selfish.

quote>

Tell that to Mother Teresa.quote>

It could be argued that Mother Teresa was trying to get her faith back the only way she knew how.   [link]

Either way, we seem to have reached the question "Does Altruism Exist?" which is a fine topic to discuss but I imagine it could use a thread of it's own.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

OK, I'll start it.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I proudly voted for Mallahan last year and Rossi this year.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I proudly voted for Mallahan last year and Rossi this year.

[Duke87 1,070]

Protip: most people here are not from where you are, and thus will not know (without googling) that Joe Malahan was the Democratic candidate for mayor of Seattle last year, or that Dino Rossi is the Republican candidate for senator from Washington this year.

It helps to explain who you're talking about if the names aren't nationally known.

[Duke87 1,070]

Protip: most people here are not from where you are, and thus will not know (without googling) that Joe Malahan was the Democratic candidate for mayor of Seattle last year, or that Dino Rossi is the Republican candidate for senator from Washington this year.

It helps to explain who you're talking about if the names aren't nationally known.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Mike McGinn was the Democratic candidate for Seattle Mayor last year and won.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Mike McGinn was the Democratic candidate for Seattle Mayor last year and won.