Big Gov USA - Should the blame go to Americans or US Politicians?

[MoneyInTheBank]

It seems to me that most people on this forum would put most of the blame on politicians and not the everyday Americans that vote for them. After all, politicians offer as a campaign promise to take one money from one American and give it to another. With 1 out of 7/8 Americans on food stamps today, not to mention all the others on other forms of welfare, can we not say that Americans are perfectly fine with our system of legalized theft? Who is more immoral? The person that grants these wishes through the power of government, or the person that demands the stolen money? I cannot point the finger (actually, I can, because the fact that I created this thread already indicates which way the wind blows in terms of my own opinion), but I want discussion.


In terms of the "average" American, the moral fabric of society is breaking down. Again, who is to blame? Among the lower-middle, and lower classes, the consensus seems to be that the poor American is automatically the victim, and the richer, more greedy Americans are to blame. Let's tax the shit out of them (I don't know about anyone else, but I have never been hired by a poor person who was poor at the time of him/her hiring me). Let's face it -- if you want jobs, you need an initial investment, an idea, and some capital. Even restaurants abide by these basic rules. You need money, either from your own savings or from investors with money. HAVING MONEY, AND LOTS OF IT, IS A GOOD THING, NOT A BAD THING! The point is, we are surrounded by pro-government propaganda all day. Isn't it personal responsibility to not be a fool, and to educate yourself on important matters?

This argument won't convince any hardcore, liberal arts educated, leftists. They can consider this a rant coming from a right-wing extremist. I don't give a shit. This post is a reality-check for people that haven't noticed (I understand that many people on this board can feel me from this perspective).

Here is my prediction for any major cuts in entitlement spending. THERE WILL BE RIOTS! These people have been raised to recognize government checks as their own personal stash. They have forgotten or just plain don't give a damn that this money had to come from fellow Americans. Go to the "hood". These motherfuckers don't give a shit. If their checks get cut or they stop receiving them, they will rob, riot, and raise hell. Going out and getting a job will be the last thing on their minds. I know there aren't enough jobs for everyone in the economy we've been given, but a lot of poor people (especially urban poor people) don't even put in the initiative. I see a lot of poor people, and from the way they talk and the way they act, it seems that they probably didn't have a job even when unemployment was pretty low.

What is the point of this rant? I don't know -- I've had about 12 shots of smirnoff.

I guess that the overall point is that we live in a virtual democracy, at least nowadays. When you live in a virtual democracy, the people who vote get as least as much blame as the people they vote for. This isn't some case where we can blame the supreme court for misinterpreting some obscure passage. We have outright unconstitutionalism and it has been going on for a long time. There was a time when the American people could have said, "Hey, you know that's not what the founders meant! Fuck you, our state is not enforcing your bullshit." We are past that.

We are kidding ourselves if we think that the America today even has a slight resemblance to the America of the distant past.






OH NO! Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Charlie Rangel!!!

I do not blame these people. They have been in Congress long enough for people to know what they stand for. They are delivering the wishes of the people that vote for them, and the people that vote for them are just fine with that. As long as people have a big-government mentality, these politicians will keep getting elected.

[squarepusher]

true, we need to take responsibility as the public

[moderate libertarian]

Politicians are a reflection of the masses.

Public is fully responsible.

[LibForestPaul]

public are greedy, asinine mundanes. they always look down, never up. worrying about their fellow man getting one over them. never looking up and seeing the yellow rain smacking them on their heads. idiots...

illegals, coloreds, gays, welfare cheats, competition, handouts for those people, and on and on, and when you point out their hands are out just as well as the ones they are pointing fingers at, look-out for such contorted logic trying to justify their beliefs that you yourself are in danger of having your own IQ drop a pt or two.

[Sjmfury]

I think the real question is... What would Jesus do?

[sailingaway]

Before the internet we only knew what politicians told us. That was into the Nineteen NINETIES.

Many here are young enough they don't realize that this information was simply not available in any realistic sense.

You bet I blame the politicians.

If I take an oath to follow some principle, or contract to, in carrying out my duties, I'd be in huge trouble if those I worked for found I'd ignored those principles completely. They took oaths to the Constitution. It is not the job of the public to look over their shoulders constantly while they do the job they promised to do. Yes, we now know we have to , but HAVING to doesn't mean we SHOULD have to.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The minarchists call us Voluntaryists naive...Eh, funny. I think we are the only realists. The problem is the system and its perverse incentives. A State must rely on Taxation in order to survive, and when presented with this precedent it does not take long for the State to use its prior tax monies on avenues to further increase its take. Seeing an avenue for legalized plunder, knowing human nature what it is (that it is in our nature to take the easiest route to any goal, or situation), our nature will predispose us to take that route -- voting yourselves others property. The precedent was all ready established in the formation of the State that legalized plunder (taxation) was perfectly acceptable. So, why wouldn't someone seeing that they could have your property simply by vote, not do so? Are you that naive to think of general society that they all accept and adhere to strong libertarian principles? Why is this not a naive and utopian view?

Once the power of taxation is given to any entity expect such entity to continue to increase its legalized plunder, on behalf of segments of the population. My god you give them such an easy tool and you then wrap it in ideology and expect it to stay locked up in pandora's box.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Before the internet we only knew what politicians told us. That was into the Nineteen NINETIES.

Many here are young enough they don't realize that this information was simply not available in any realistic sense.

You bet I blame the politicians.

If I take an oath to follow some principle, or contract to, in carrying out my duties, I'd be in huge trouble if those I worked for found I'd ignored those principles completely. They took oaths to the Constitution. It is not the job of the public to look over their shoulders constantly while they do the job they promised to do. Yes, we now know we have to , but HAVING to doesn't mean we SHOULD have to.

Really? Why do I always hear that I have to be eternally vigilant then? Blaming the politicians is like blaming human nature. What's your point? What history do you have on your side that a liberal society has ever been kept in pandora's box? All I see is that every liberal society in history from Rome, to Britain, to America has turned into a monster so disgusting, so destructive, that it is worse than the Despots most despised. Somehow I think Nero worse than the Germanic Tribes. Somehow I think King George, Napoleon, etc. worse than Tsarist Russia. Somehow I think the US Empire worse than USSR. In any measure of destruction of human life and property they certainly are. Why give the tools to the tyrants of the future?

[RCA]

The people are to blame. Have you tried talking to any of them?

[Carson]

Ultimately we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Then again, if judgment day was yesterday, it took everyone of us to get us to where we are now. We have a lot to proud of, and proud of in each other and ourselves.

We also have some things that need to be looked into. I see the major problem is that we've given others the ability to print up what ever amount it takes to get their way. Not only can our government fire up the fake money presses but others can outside of our country. It has allowed a serious shift in power around the world as we are not the only ones with central bank problems.

Even in our ignorance the system is crashing and burning. That leaves a serious problem of getting the word out in time to salvage what we have. Many that control the information that is being allowed to get out have been looting the system and are happy with the information that is being taught. I think many of them are happy with those we are being allowed to elect.

Time is running out to get our shit together.

[heavenlyboy34]

The people are to blame. Have you tried talking to any of them?
Yes. Butler Schaffer's term "Boobus Americanus" is apt in describing them. That is why I do not trust them to make the correct judgements for my present or future.

[low preference guy]

The minarchists call us Voluntaryists naive...Eh, funny. I think we are the only realists. The problem is the system and its perverse incentives. A State must rely on Taxation in order to survive

that's not true. an alternative way to fund the government is paying fees for services. for example, a fee for enforcing contracts. so your statement is wrong.

[low preference guy]

each individual has a different degree of blame. some none at all.

[heavenlyboy34]

Ultimately we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Then again, if judgment day was yesterday, it took everyone of us to get us to where we are now. We have a lot to proud of, and proud of in each other and ourselves.

We also have some things that need to be looked into. I see the major problem is that we've given others the ability to print up what ever amount it takes to get their way. Not only can our government fire up the fake money presses but others can outside of our country. It has allowed a serious shift in power around the world as we are not the only ones with central bank problems.

Even in our ignorance the system is crashing and burning. That leaves a serious problem of getting the word out in time to salvage what we have. Many that control the information that is being allowed to get out have been looting the system and are happy with the information that is being taught. I think many of them are happy with those we are being allowed to elect.

Time is running out to get our shit together.
This strikes me as blaming the victim every time it comes up. The pronoun "we" is totally inappropriate. It should be replaced with "the voters and the regime". Just as I can't blame every Russian for the 1917 revolution, I can't blame every American for the tyranny we have now (and have had for 200+ years).

[heavenlyboy34]

each individual has a different degree of blame. some none at all.qft.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

that's not true. an alternative way to fund the government is paying fees for services. for example, a fee for enforcing contracts. so your statement is wrong.

Come on LPG. Government and State are not the same. I think we need a sticky for definitions so we can get past language barriers. I do not see how fees are different than taxation if you have to be apart of the system of territorial monopoly on law, justice, security, etc. Sure, it isn't exactly a monopoly if you have to pay a State-price on that milk that heir-Commissar is producing, since you do not have to pay it. A Government if you so desire to call it such, can be voluntary insomuch that it neither initiates force on other individuals either in their attempt to construct a business for law, security, justice, etc., or by the means in which they fund themselves.

If you tell someone that we will force you to use our services, but you can choose not to pay if you want, is the same as saying, we own the means of your survival, but you do not have to pay us for them, however, you are forcibly prevented from obtaining these means on your own, or with others. How exactly is that voluntary, or of a principle of self-ownership?

[low preference guy]

If you tell someone that we will force you to use our services, but you can choose not to pay if you want, is the same as saying, we own the means of your survival, but you do not have to pay us for them, however, you are forcibly prevented from obtaining these means on your own, or with others. How exactly is that voluntary, or of a principle of self-ownership?

no one would be forced to use the services. the fee would be paid only by those who CHOOSE to enforce a contract by the state.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

no one would be forced to use the services. the fee would be paid only by those who CHOOSE to enforce a contract by the state.

Sure you would be. The State owns the only means of justice, law, and security. You can't think me of such naivety that society can exist without such functions can you? How exactly would this monopolist entity set the price of these fees? What calculation are they using? Surely, not profit and loss. So, in this state of affairs, you have to pay their 'fee's' in order to obtain their service, however, the provider is also the enforcer with their agents to come and confiscate your property, and or you, in the event you decide to compete with their services. How exactly is a fee different than a tax in this scenario? Like I said, it is akin to this entity having the only means to your survival, however, you are not forced to use them, or pay for them, but you need them for survival and yet they disbar you from obtaining these means of survival on your own, or from others. In your scenario a Fee is a Tax!

[low preference guy]

Like I said, it is akin to this entity having the only means to your survival, however, you are not forced to use them, or pay for them, but you need them for survival and yet they disbar you from obtaining these means of survival on your own, or from others. In your scenario a Fee is a Tax!

bullshit. contracts are essential only to long term projects. to survive you don't need them.


How exactly would this monopolist entity set the price of these fees?

the states would ideally be small so they would compete with states next to it.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

bullshit. contracts are essential only to long term projects. to survive you don't need them.



the states would ideally be small so they would compete with states next to it.

What exactly is your objection of a marketplace in the production of security, law, and justice?

[low preference guy]

What exactly is your objection of a marketplace in the production of security, law, and justice?

when did the topic change? i just said that taxes are not necessary for a state, as you claimed.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

when did the topic change? i just said that taxes are not necessary for a state, as you claimed.

A State by definition has taxation. You seem to confuse the difference between Government and State, and so then interchange them as if they mean the same. Look, if you want to call the companies producing law, security, etc. Government you may do so -- but, they have no properties in common with a State.

[low preference guy]

A State by definition has taxation.

no. definition: a legal monopoly on the use of force in a given geographical area. where is taxation?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

no. definition: a legal monopoly on the use of force in a given geographical area. where is taxation?

So to you, Government and State are synonymous? You see no difference between the two? (I generally use the historical philosophical definition of State -- not sure which one you are using)

[low preference guy]

So to you, Government and State are synonymous? You see no difference between the two? (I generally use the historical philosophical definition of State -- not sure which one you are using)

i won't talk about strange topics. what's your definition of state and where in the definition is taxation? do you concede that the definition i provided doesn't imply the necessity of taxation?

[MoneyInTheBank]

If I take an oath to follow some principle, or contract to, in carrying out my duties, I'd be in huge trouble if those I worked for found I'd ignored those principles completely. They took oaths to the Constitution. It is not the job of the public to look over their shoulders constantly while they do the job they promised to do. Yes, we now know we have to , but HAVING to doesn't mean we SHOULD have to.

If we are going to live in this monstrosity called government, and being a public official requires taking an oath, who the fuck else is going to monitor these goons other than the constituents? Angels? You cannot be that naive. That's like saying, I don't want corruption in government, but I don't want to HAVE TO CARE about how elected officials conduct themselves.

Here's how I see it. For a lot of people, government is still the servant. Congressmen and Senators wouldn't get elected every election cycle if they didn't pursue policies that people approved of.

Honestly, let's ask ourselves a question. We hear all this bullshit about making government the servant and not the master. If government is the servant and is made to pursue immoral causes, how is that better than outright tyranny?....It is outright tyranny. People just don't realize it.

[MoneyInTheBank]

each individual has a different degree of blame. some none at all.

Haha!

I've never voted, EVER! Not local, not at the state level, not at the federal level. NOPE!

I don't participate in the system that I have criticized in the OP. Can't put blame on me.

[MoneyInTheBank]

The people are to blame. Have you tried talking to any of them?

I love it. Perfect reply. +rep

I talk to these heathen all the time. The CEO of the last place I worked at was a Communist. My current boss is a Socialist. I'm not using these terms because I want to label these people. I'm using these terms because Communist and Socialist are words they use to describe themselves. I'm in Illinois -- no surprise here.

I was helping one of my black friends move the other day. I was in what people would call "the hood". A kid that must have been 16-17 years old tried to sell me a bag of weed. He was friendly, not hostile, but I had to notice more than just his character. He had tattoos on his arms and on his face, and most importantly on his hands. His command of the English language was the equivalent of a white or asian 3rd grade student. I thought to myself, "This kid will get turned down for all sorts of jobs. Not even 18 years old and he already fucked up."

The reality of living in the US in the current state that it is in, is that there are some people that are beyond, or not worth saving. For instance, the best way to stop and help people involved in flash mobs, which I have witnessed in Chicago, is lethal self defense and respect for the 2nd amendment. Nothing says stop doing dumb shit like seeing a couple of your homeboys getting two in the chest by law-abiding citizens. Or fucking with the wrong person and getting you and a bunch of your homeboys ass whooped by one guy that is a professional fighter.

Let's stop the idea that we have to help EVERYBODY. You can help EVERYBODY, waste a lot of funds, work with the best of intentions, and then realize that the people you are helping are not willing to help themselves. I'm not talking about the mentally challenged, or the disabled -- there is definitely a role for private charity in this country. But the vast majority of people receiving public funds are perfectly capable of sustaining themselves without government checks. I say, stop the theft of innocents. let the entitlement class riot, defend yourselves against them, and eventually what will happen is the most unproductive will get weeded out. This is not genocide. I simply support letting people defend their earnings and defend their lives. That is all.

[Rothbardian Girl]

I think there is a lot of blame to go around. I agree that many people today are cowed by the media and establishment, and others are just plain stupid for not caring about anything (if you're paying taxes towards something, I would assume you would have at least one inkling of caring towards that thing). I would rather blame the state's indoctrination system which has taught the populace to think the current activities of the government are legitimate functions and are needed in society. Liberation to me in today's society is educating yourself about the misdeeds of the state. It bothers me that so many people are willfully ignorant today. We may have "abolished" physical slavery, but the intellectual slavery continues.

However, I place an even greater percentage of blame on the politicians and puppet masters in the "Establishment". I really cannot get angry at the average person who doesn't want to see SS or Medicare taken away, because it is really the state's fault that the welfare system was foisted upon the average person. The very nature of government programs seems to encourage monopolies and leave the average person with little to no choice. The state has forced people into accepting its poison because it crowds out interested private charities (we've seen this with FEMA, of course, and yet the average person still doesn't realize what the whole FEMA brouhaha obviously means).

The same applies on the other side of policy with our foreign policy. The media and years of schooling have apparently corralled our population in believing murder is justified to make "American interests" safe. Any look at the public school history curriculum during/after the Great Depression will reveal that that curriculum is biased in every way to make our military adventures seem totally acceptable and natural. Honestly, I can't believe more people don't see through the wool that has been pulled over their eyes. The average conservative (like my dad, for instance) can rant and rave about the "communists in the school system", but the indoctrination actually falls quite in line with a solidly mainstream, interventionist agenda. I'd rather blame the people in charge for this massive wool-pulling scheme, because it's up to them what gets taught in schools.

[LibForestPaul]

I would rather blame the state's indoctrination system which has taught the populace to think the current activities of the government are legitimate functions and are needed in society. ...

I thought this as well. But when you point this out, they really do not want to listen...unless they are afraid of what happens w/o their reality...

[Rothbardian Girl]

I thought this as well. But when you point this out, they really do not want to listen...unless they are afraid of what happens w/o their reality...

True. I just feel as though everything is intertwined and there's really no easy way out. Their indoctrination has made them sheep and has closed them off to reality... I think they don't want to listen precisely because of media interference and conditioning. Our arguments make complete sense, but it's out of something else that many people reject them... fear? Indifference? Ignorance? Probably a combination of all three.

[Carson]

Haha!

I've never voted, EVER! Not local, not at the state level, not at the federal level. NOPE!

I don't participate in the system that I have criticized in the OP. Can't put blame on me.

So your the one!

[heavenlyboy34]

So to you, Government and State are synonymous? You see no difference between the two? (I generally use the historical philosophical definition of State -- not sure which one you are using) I like Bourne's definition. Do you agree?
http://fair-use.org/randolph-bourne/the-state/
"The State is the country acting as a political unit, it is the group acting as a repository of force, determiner of law, arbiter of justice. International politics is a power politics because it is a relation of States and that is what States infallibly and calamitously are, huge aggregations of human and industrial force that may be hurled against each other in war. When a country acts as a whole in relation to another country, or in imposing laws on its own inhabitants, or in coercing or punishing individuals or minorities, it is acting as a State. The history of America as a country is quite different from that of America as a State. In one case it is the drama of the pioneering conquest of the land, of the growth of wealth and the ways in which it was used, of the enterprise of education, and the carrying out of spiritual ideals, of the struggle of economic classes. But as a State, its history is that of playing a part in the world, making war, obstructing international trade, preventing itself from being split to pieces, punishing those citizens whom society agrees are offensive, and collecting money to pay for all."
Rothbard's "Anatomy of The State (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard62.html)" is helpful as well.