Jump to content
Libertarian. That explains your ongoing statist complaint. Statism is the polar opposite of libertarianism. You should spend less time labeling people. Presumption is no argument.
I think early on most Americans, and the founders, were statists. It certainly was more called for then - they were building a nation. Important examples of our early politics have already been brought up in this thread: Shays rebellion of 1786 and it's quashing. Also the creation of the Military Acts of 1792, one passed May 2 and one passed May 8. These seem to be examples of statism.
We have different needs today.
I meant to write: Obviously, government does NOT have the luxury of planning only for the next quarter.
Mark, your last post says you will not respect THIS government. Your post just before that says you will not respect government period. I'll take that as progress. The Declaration of Independence does respect both people and government.
I above posted that Routt County and Colorado platforms of Democrats have called for repeal of the Patriot Act. Their platforms have done this for many years. I cannot find any Republican platform that even mentions it.
Senator Udall, a Democrat, voted against it. 17 other Dem Senators voted against it. 4 Republicans voted against it.
Maybe someday you'll stop lumping people into the bad box and the good box. In some cases liberals are the ones fighting to maintain your liberties.
I'm not trying to defend our elected officials. But as I posted above, our Declaration of Independence clearly points to government as a foundation for liberties and freedoms.
Be in control of your sporting reward.
Paddle the Yampa!
You cannot lose. :)
Mark, respect for government allows room to respect the individual.
You omit some words that make a difference.
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Can you agree that government is necessary to deliver safety and happiness?
I do not read the Declaration as support for 100 men to rebel. "it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another". Again, through the Federalist Papers the founders consistently queue a state, at a minimum, as the proper resistor to tyranny. The treatment of the Shays Rebellion in 1786, seems emblematic of that position.
There are only individuals? "There ARE NO SUCH THINGS as ends of or actions by groups, collectives, or states"?
Except for example, the Declaration of Independence, which begins,
"The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America"
Wherein the signors oft describe themselves and our new country as "We", choosing to emphasize We as a proper noun by capitalizing it: "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." Mark, that sentence presents Americans as part of some group, some collective, very much committed to each other rather than seeing men as individuals.
Scott, I don't believe this is about government being smarter, and I don't think our government is claiming to be smarter. To George's comment, this is about differing goals.
There are a few companies planning 10 years out. I'm not saying that is a fault. It fits the nature of profit taking. On the other hand, nearly every municipality in the U.S. is planning 10 and some, 20 years out. A company being smart will reach a very different strategy than a municipality being smart. So comparing who is smarter requires two different grading metrics, one for each.
That being said, business will win "smarter" almost every time. Putting maximum cash in your pocket is much simpler than growing the best town. Also, easier to be right about the next quarter than right about 10 years from now. Obviously, government does have the luxury of planning only for the next quarter.
I like your NBA posts. Not even my sport, but a good reminder we are shucking peanuts here.
I would stand a chance at the shell game if we weighed the environmental impacts. Fossil fuels have the subsidy of harm un-costed. Put Iraq in the CPA's hands and those gallons cost a lot more.
Last login: Monday, May 6, 2013
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2013 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.