Aren't there plenty of Democrats who have no problem with being called Socialists or even a Socialist party?
I have no problem with someone calling me a socialist because it just means they're kind of dumb.
I also don't mind when someone tells me I'm secretly a lizard person.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
It's very difficult for a party to develop coherent policy when it is out of power.
Given the tides currently throwing the GOP against the rocks and threatening to smash it up, I think issuing statements like "we oppose the Democrats" and "Republicans are unified" and "we stand by our core values" are about all they will be able to manage - maybe into next year.
The point isn't to win the next election, the point is to pump water and pray the ship doesn't break up before the storm passes.
As far as that goes isn't this kind of lame anyway? I mean, the Pubs are still a national-scale political party with pretty deep roots in some areas. Do they really need to pass internal resolutions declaring "The other guys suck" to keep the faith? I mean, hell, is anybody besides us politics junkies even following stuff like this?
There are lots of ways for Republicans to push their anti-Democrat message. The point of such resolutions is to try to unify a message. Otherwise you get fragments of the conservative coalition screaming their own concerns: homosexuals! abortion! terrorists! tax and spend! san francisco liberals! alaskan oil! And then when Republican leaders appear on TV they appear confused about what their biggest concerns are.
So this is what such resolution do: set a focus. They're not binding or anything; they just make a focus explicit so there's no confusion. This particular resolution was just badly written and comes off as childish; the sponsors should have audience-tested it before putting it on the RNC special session agenda.
Lindsey Graham still thinks the GOP should hold the line and conduct business as usual on the policies of the Bush administration. This is because he's a "winner". That worked great for the GOP in 2008 Lindsey. You guys did a fantastic job of winning.
It's very difficult for a party to develop coherent policy when it is out of power.
Given the tides currently throwing the GOP against the rocks and threatening to smash it up, I think issuing statements like "we oppose the Democrats" and "Republicans are unified" and "we stand by our core values" are about all they will be able to manage - maybe into next year.
The point isn't to win the next election, the point is to pump water and pray the ship doesn't break up before the storm passes.
As far as that goes isn't this kind of lame anyway? I mean, the Pubs are still a national-scale political party with pretty deep roots in some areas. Do they really need to pass internal resolutions declaring "The other guys suck" to keep the faith? I mean, hell, is anybody besides us politics junkies even following stuff like this?
There are lots of ways for Republicans to push their anti-Democrat message. The point of such resolutions is to try to unify a message. Otherwise you get fragments of the conservative coalition screaming their own concerns: homosexuals! abortion! terrorists! tax and spend! san francisco liberals! alaskan oil! And then when Republican leaders appear on TV they appear confused about what their biggest concerns are.
So this is what such resolution do: set a focus. They're not binding or anything; they just make a focus explicit so there's no confusion. This particular resolution was just badly written and comes off as childish; the sponsors should have audience-tested it before putting it on the RNC special session agenda.
Except we've known about it (and mocked it mercilessly) for a month now at least. A large part of the problem is that the GOP code is broken - the traditional code words are well known. No Republican could start their presidential run like Reagan did in 80 - if they did, they would be outed as a bigot just by their actions. So now they're trying to figure out new code words. The problem is that as soon as they get a new code word out in the mainstream, it's rapidly decoded and discredited.
I don't think he really gets how you do the whole 'fiery populist screed' thing. You'd think someone that's risen to being a Senator would understand their strengths and weaknesses as public speakers and try to hew closer to the former rather than embarrass themselves trying the latter.
I don't think he really gets how you do the whole 'fiery populist screed' thing. You'd think someone that's risen to being a Senator would understand their strengths and weaknesses as public speakers and try to hew closer to the former rather than embarrass themselves trying the latter.
I thought he did pretty well, actually... he got what sounds like the majority of a initially hostile crowd to cheer him, by invoking the only common plank between neoconservatives and neolibertarians: war. As far as spontaneous responses go (it looks like he came up with it on the spot?), it's pretty well done.
I have no idea what inspired him to bring up the topic, though. He is right that libertarians are a minority group in the Republican coalition, but it must really sting for this to be emphasized. It doesn't make him any friends, and earns him some really fanatical enemies.
Until someone can point out someone in the Republican party that you'd be comfortable being the most powerful man in the world, the "we need two parties" thing is just not true. If there was the (Godwin'd!) Party and the Party of People with Reasonable Ideas, a coalition government is not better than removing all power from the former group. As long as the other side is so crazy that the damage done by their ideology exceeds the corruption-reducing tendencies of mixed government, single party rule is superior.
Until someone can point out someone in the Republican party that you'd be comfortable being the most powerful man in the world, the "we need two parties" thing is just not true. If there was the (Godwin'd!) Party and the Party of People with Reasonable Ideas, a coalition government is not better than removing all power from the former group. As long as the other side is so crazy that the damage done by their ideology exceeds the corruption-reducing tendencies of mixed government, single party rule is superior.
I can, they just wouldn't win a primary/general or don't meet the arbitrary standards and requirements.
And I invite you to come experience the joy* of living in a one party state.
I prefer when the two parties have roughly equal political clout; they each advocate a handful of crazy ideas, but ideally they interfere with each other enough to prevent anything truly insane from being passed.
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
I prefer when the two parties have roughly equal political clout; they each advocate a handful of crazy ideas, but ideally they interfere with each other enough to prevent anything truly insane from being passed.
We really need to invent a name for this fallacy
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I prefer when the two parties have roughly equal political clout; they each advocate a handful of crazy ideas, but ideally they interfere with each other enough to prevent anything truly insane from being passed.
Until someone can point out someone in the Republican party that you'd be comfortable being the most powerful man in the world, the "we need two parties" thing is just not true. If there was the (Godwin'd!) Party and the Party of People with Reasonable Ideas, a coalition government is not better than removing all power from the former group. As long as the other side is so crazy that the damage done by their ideology exceeds the corruption-reducing tendencies of mixed government, single party rule is superior.
I can, they just wouldn't win a primary/general or don't meet the arbitrary standards and requirements.
And I invite you to come experience the joy* of living in a one party state.
*Joy may be confused with Lovecraftian horror.
In Massachusetts, the Democratic Party controls every federal office, every statewide office and over 80% of the Legislature. I'd hold my state's record in education (highest in the country and high public school performance), healthcare (nigh universal), and civil rights (gay marriage, black governor in a 90% white state) and even family values (lowest divorce rate, absolutely and as a % of marriages), law and order (crime rate ~25% below national average) and taxes (almost exactly average tax burden despite above) against any state's. Would it be nice if there was a reasonable alternative party to moderate some of the cronyism and such? Definitely, that's why we used to put guys like William Weld and Mitt Romney in our (extremely weak) governor's seat. But even that became too much with the swing towards radicalism that has occurred in the last decade.
Single party rule is superior to "moderation" when that means cutting your good ideas with a mixture of lunacy and malfeasance.
The bigger the government gets the worse off the country as a whole becomes; you can call my desire for a political situation that minimizes governmental growth whatever you want.
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
The bigger the government gets the worse off the country as a whole becomes; you can call my desire for a political situation that minimizes governmental growth whatever you want.
Anarchism?
Wrong-headed?
Factually and historically baseless?
I prefer when the two parties have roughly equal political clout; they each advocate a handful of crazy ideas, but ideally they interfere with each other enough to prevent anything useful from being passed.
Darkchampion3d on
Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
I prefer when the two parties have roughly equal political clout; they each advocate a handful of crazy ideas, but ideally they interfere with each other enough to prevent anything truly insane from being passed.
We really need to invent a name for this fallacy
gridlock
Suitable, but it lacks a certain.... pizazz.
Anyone who thinks that the correct way to deal with crazies in the government is to elect crazies from the "other side" regardless of what those crazies may believe is, well, stupid. If you want to control the crazy people in the government, stop electing crazy people to seats of power. "Balance" isn't the answer here, gorram it; identify and vote out the crazies.
I long for the day when the American people cease fellating "balance" and "moderation" and clamp down on the throbbing member of "sanity."
The bigger the government gets the worse off the country as a whole becomes; you can call my desire for a political situation that minimizes governmental growth whatever you want.
The bigger the government gets the worse off the country as a whole becomes; you can call my desire for a political situation that minimizes governmental growth whatever you want.
Anarchism?
Wrong-headed?
Factually and historically baseless?
Small government != Anarchism. What exactly is the historical, factual basis for anything that you're claiming?
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
The bigger the government gets the worse off the country as a whole becomes; you can call my desire for a political situation that minimizes governmental growth whatever you want.
Anarchism?
Wrong-headed?
Factually and historically baseless?
Small government != Anarchism. What exactly is the historical, factual basis for anything that you're claiming?
As has been pointed out repeatedly, Somalia's government, for example, certainly doesn't do much. You want to live there? Yeah, me neither.
Historically and factually, areas that go from having some or a lot of government influence to having little or none tend to turn into immense shitholes. This doesn't usually smooth out until government is reinserted.
The bigger the government gets the worse off the country as a whole becomes; you can call my desire for a political situation that minimizes governmental growth whatever you want.
California?
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The bigger the government gets the worse off the country as a whole becomes; you can call my desire for a political situation that minimizes governmental growth whatever you want.
Anarchism?
Wrong-headed?
Factually and historically baseless?
Small government != Anarchism. What exactly is the historical, factual basis for anything that you're claiming?
Your statement: Bigger Government = Lower Quality of Life
Restated: Smaller Government = Higher Quality of Life
Logical Extreme: No Government = Highest Quality of Life
The bigger the government gets the worse off the country as a whole becomes; you can call my desire for a political situation that minimizes governmental growth whatever you want.
California?
Man, one of these days we're gonna fix all the stupid shit we put in our state constitution and then see how awesome we are!!
The bigger the government gets the worse off the country as a whole becomes; you can call my desire for a political situation that minimizes governmental growth whatever you want.
California?
Man, one of these days we're gonna fix all the stupid shit we put in our state constitution and then see how awesome we are!!
The current situation out there is basically going to require either a repeal of the 2/3 rule or a straight out constitutional convention to re-write the damn thing.
Alternately: what happens if California declares bankruptcy?
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Alright, I'll be more clear. The government ought to protect property rights in order to prevent anarchy, but growing beyond that encourages inefficiency and corruption.
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
The bigger the government gets the worse off the country as a whole becomes; you can call my desire for a political situation that minimizes governmental growth whatever you want.
California?
Man, one of these days we're gonna fix all the stupid shit we put in our state constitution and then see how awesome we are!!
The current situation out there is basically going to require either a repeal of the 2/3 rule or a straight out constitutional convention to re-write the damn thing.
Alternately: what happens if California declares bankruptcy?
It's going to require a constitutional convention. Even if there were a ballot measure to repeal the 2/3 rule, that would only fix one of the many, many problems afflicting our state government, most of which stem from poorly written ballot measures enacted as constitutional amendments.
If we declare bankruptcy, hopefully people will come to their senses and we'll have a constitutional convention. That said, I don't think either of these things is likely to happen. We'll most likely just continue to limp along under our current constitution.
The bigger the government gets the worse off the country as a whole becomes; you can call my desire for a political situation that minimizes governmental growth whatever you want.
California?
Man, one of these days we're gonna fix all the stupid shit we put in our state constitution and then see how awesome we are!!
The current situation out there is basically going to require either a repeal of the 2/3 rule or a straight out constitutional convention to re-write the damn thing.
Alternately: what happens if California declares bankruptcy?
California? Nah, no California here mate. Pacifica is the name of our state, look, we've got a shiny new not insane constitution to prove it too.
Alright, I'll be more clear. The government ought to protect property rights in order to prevent anarchy, but growing beyond that encourages inefficiency and corruption.
As opposed to the inefficiency and corruption that a lack of oversight and functioning public works encourages in the private sector.
I prefer when the two parties have roughly equal political clout; they each advocate a handful of crazy ideas, but ideally they interfere with each other enough to prevent anything truly insane from being passed.
We really need to invent a name for this fallacy
The Golden Mean Fallacy is the word you are looking for. It assumes that extremes are always incorrect and therefor the middel of the road is better. Also know as the appeal to moderation.
An example for the books: Some people want to make slavery illegal across the entire US. Some want to make slavery legal across the entire US. The moderate compromise would be to make slavery legal in half the states(The South). This argument forgets that the pro-slavery side is wrong!
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
I prefer when the two parties have roughly equal political clout; they each advocate a handful of crazy ideas, but ideally they interfere with each other enough to prevent anything truly insane from being passed.
We really need to invent a name for this fallacy
The Golden Mean Fallacy is the word you are looking for. It assumes that extremes are always incorrect and therefor the middel of the road is better. Also know as the appeal to moderation.
An example for the books: Some people want to make slavery illegal across the entire US. Some want to make slavery legal across the entire US. The moderate compromise would be to make slavery legal in half the states(The South). This argument forgets that the pro-slavery side is wrong!
Alternately: The Church of High Broderism, for the US political audience.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The bigger the government gets the worse off the country as a whole becomes; you can call my desire for a political situation that minimizes governmental growth whatever you want.
Anarchism?
Wrong-headed?
Factually and historically baseless?
Small government != Anarchism. What exactly is the historical, factual basis for anything that you're claiming?
As has been pointed out repeatedly, Somalia's government, for example, certainly doesn't do much. You want to live there? Yeah, me neither.
Historically and factually, areas that go from having some or a lot of government influence to having little or none tend to turn into immense shitholes. This doesn't usually smooth out until government is reinserted.
Ignoring the Somalia example briefly, the point of "Small Government = Better Country" doesn't seem to be factoring in the fact that we are the world superpower, and barring some sort of catastrophic nuclear accident or totally one-sided war, will still retain a gigantic military infrastructure even after we stop being that superpower.
Military forces are part of the national government, obviously. We're not in 19th century Germany. When a small representative government is tasked with managing a gigantic, extensive military and the industrial backing needed to maintain it, the end result is frequently something comparable to Argentina during and after the Second World War. In other words not a good thing.
And this is ignoring the fact that we are currently involved in two wars.
If you want small government, you'd better get rid of that giant military that the government has been propping up since before Operation Overlord, or you can be certain it will drag you into the depths of hell (or, more specifically, a military junta) with you. There is no such thing as a libertarian superpower.
Really, proponents of small civic government need to decide of if they're willing to give up the country's superpower status before they decide the Department of Education and Health and H.S. are obsolete.
The bigger the government gets the worse off the country as a whole becomes; you can call my desire for a political situation that minimizes governmental growth whatever you want.
Statistically, a Republican Congress and a Democratic Presidency delivers the lowest growth in government. This result may have been skewed by Gingrich and Clinton's Big Fight in 1995, though (source).
Crucially, Republicans don't actually want smaller government; in fact, Republican control over Congress and Presidency causes even faster expansion than Democratic control. Plausible reasons for this behavior are fairly simple (a la "only Nixon could go to China"-style models; Dems lose more political points with expansion in a divided government, implying that a Dem executive will expand less).
This being said, this still expands the size of government. A curiosity unique to US politics is that political battle lines are not drawn along economic class lines as in virtually all other Western liberal nations - with the result that both parties are beholden to powerful industry and interest groups, and too closely tied against their competition to attempt to shake off such lobbyists. In other countries a conservative party can break the unions and a liberal party can crush corporate welfare; in the US there are no such options.
The Republican socioconservative wing likes its high labor wages (no matter what Joe the alleged Plumber says). The Democrat's educated professional bloc typically support rigorous industry regulation (which often have the side effect of reducing competition. And also reducing grisly accidents, environmental rampages, and corporate malfeasance. But also competition).
The only way out is a major political realignment, which may or may not be happening right now under our feet. Maybe we'll wait another three generations before the next realignment election. Or maybe not. Depends how the Republicans decide to roll, doesn't it? See also: Lindsey Graham and Sanford, earlier in thread.
ronya on
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
The bigger the government gets the worse off the country as a whole becomes
I would love to see a citation for this. Several of them, in fact. I mean, you'll excuse me for finding it counterintuitive, since, for instance, I can right now drive down a federal highway to visit a national park protected by the Department of the Interior and fish in a lake built by the Army Corps of Engineers and kept clean by the EPA, then cook the fish in a simple shelter built by the WPA on a George Foreman grill whose inventor is protected by the Patent Office, and also cook up some beans free of fecal matter and human fingers because of the FDA and USDA, then call my friend on a cell phone with a minimum of interference thanks to FCC regulations, then post about my awesome vacation on a global computer network created by the Defense Department.
The bigger the government gets the worse off the country as a whole becomes
I would love to see a citation for this. Several of them, in fact. I mean, you'll excuse me for finding it counterintuitive, since, for instance, I can right now drive down a federal highway to visit a national park protected by the Department of the Interior and fish in a lake built by the Army Corps of Engineers and kept clean by the EPA, then cook the fish in a simple shelter built by the WPA on a George Foreman grill whose inventor is protected by the Patent Office, and also cook up some beans free of fecal matter and human fingers because of the FDA and USDA, then call my friend on a cell phone with a minimum of interference thanks to FCC regulations, then post about my awesome vacation on a global computer network created by the Defense Department.
Yes, but aside from all that, what has the government ever done for us?
The bigger the government gets the worse off the country as a whole becomes
I would love to see a citation for this. Several of them, in fact. I mean, you'll excuse me for finding it counterintuitive, since, for instance, I can right now drive down a federal highway to visit a national park protected by the Department of the Interior and fish in a lake built by the Army Corps of Engineers and kept clean by the EPA, then cook the fish in a simple shelter built by the WPA on a George Foreman grill whose inventor is protected by the Patent Office, and also cook up some beans free of fecal matter and human fingers because of the FDA and USDA, then call my friend on a cell phone with a minimum of interference thanks to FCC regulations, then post about my awesome vacation on a global computer network created by the Defense Department.
After reading the beginning of your post I was about to make an argument in broad strokes about the inherent welfare loss caused by any substantial tax increases, but by the end of it I decided to take a different tack with my response.
1) The FDA and USDA institute a floor to how much feces your beans contain, but rest assured your beans (probably) contain no more than the legal limit of rat feces.
2) The cell phone industry has god-awful customer service, dodgy connectivity, stupidly high hidden fees, and no alternative providers because the government is complicit in allowing their colluding oligopoly to exist.
3) The internet was invented by the government? Al Gore, no doubt.
I'd rather spend my money on brand labels with reputations for clean food than pay it in taxes towards bloated, ineffective market regulating organizations.
If I wasn't at work I could look up a few citations for you. I recommend Alchian's research into central planning.
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
I'd rather spend my money on brand labels with reputations for clean food than pay it in taxes towards bloated, ineffective market regulating organizations.
Reputations made how, by their advertising agents? You would trust that more?
And accept the part where sometimes you'd not be able to get the "good rep" product and have to accept the one consisting of rat poop?
The bigger the government gets the worse off the country as a whole becomes
I would love to see a citation for this. Several of them, in fact. I mean, you'll excuse me for finding it counterintuitive, since, for instance, I can right now drive down a federal highway to visit a national park protected by the Department of the Interior and fish in a lake built by the Army Corps of Engineers and kept clean by the EPA, then cook the fish in a simple shelter built by the WPA on a George Foreman grill whose inventor is protected by the Patent Office, and also cook up some beans free of fecal matter and human fingers because of the FDA and USDA, then call my friend on a cell phone with a minimum of interference thanks to FCC regulations, then post about my awesome vacation on a global computer network created by the Defense Department.
After reading the beginning of your post I was about to make an argument in broad strokes about the inherent welfare loss caused by any substantial tax increases, but by the end of it I decided to take a different tack with my response.
1) The FDA and USDA institute a floor to how much feces your beans contain, but rest assured your beans (probably) contain no more than the legal limit of rat feces.
Was there supposed to be a point here? Also, cite for the floor?
2) The cell phone industry has god-awful customer service, dodgy connectivity, stupidly high hidden fees, and no alternative providers because the government is complicit in allowing their colluding oligopoly to exist.
3) The internet was invented by the government? Al Gore, no doubt.
Yes, actually, it was. DARPANet and ARPANet were the first internets, and they were entirely funded by the government; the DoD, to be precise. Al Gore did not invent the Internet (and thank you for spouting that stupid fucking lie), but he was influential in its development.
I'd rather spend my money on brand labels with reputations for clean food than pay it in taxes towards bloated, ineffective market regulating organizations.
Interesting how all companies are good and all government agencies are bad.
I'd rather spend my money on brand labels with reputations for clean food than pay it in taxes towards bloated, ineffective market regulating organizations.
Seriously.
Worst thing the government ever did was force people to learn about smoking from them and their scientists rather than tobacco companies.
Posts
I have no problem with someone calling me a socialist because it just means they're kind of dumb.
I also don't mind when someone tells me I'm secretly a lizard person.
ElJeffe ==
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
There are lots of ways for Republicans to push their anti-Democrat message. The point of such resolutions is to try to unify a message. Otherwise you get fragments of the conservative coalition screaming their own concerns: homosexuals! abortion! terrorists! tax and spend! san francisco liberals! alaskan oil! And then when Republican leaders appear on TV they appear confused about what their biggest concerns are.
So this is what such resolution do: set a focus. They're not binding or anything; they just make a focus explicit so there's no confusion. This particular resolution was just badly written and comes off as childish; the sponsors should have audience-tested it before putting it on the RNC special session agenda.
Lindsay Graham hating on libertarians:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liwJFaSYCYk
Mark Sanford, likely presidential candidate in 2012, saying the opposite.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikqJ_KB66WQ
Except we've known about it (and mocked it mercilessly) for a month now at least. A large part of the problem is that the GOP code is broken - the traditional code words are well known. No Republican could start their presidential run like Reagan did in 80 - if they did, they would be outed as a bigot just by their actions. So now they're trying to figure out new code words. The problem is that as soon as they get a new code word out in the mainstream, it's rapidly decoded and discredited.
I don't think he really gets how you do the whole 'fiery populist screed' thing. You'd think someone that's risen to being a Senator would understand their strengths and weaknesses as public speakers and try to hew closer to the former rather than embarrass themselves trying the latter.
I thought he did pretty well, actually... he got what sounds like the majority of a initially hostile crowd to cheer him, by invoking the only common plank between neoconservatives and neolibertarians: war. As far as spontaneous responses go (it looks like he came up with it on the spot?), it's pretty well done.
I have no idea what inspired him to bring up the topic, though. He is right that libertarians are a minority group in the Republican coalition, but it must really sting for this to be emphasized. It doesn't make him any friends, and earns him some really fanatical enemies.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I can, they just wouldn't win a primary/general or don't meet the arbitrary standards and requirements.
And I invite you to come experience the joy* of living in a one party state.
*Joy may be confused with Lovecraftian horror.
We really need to invent a name for this fallacy
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
gridlock
In Massachusetts, the Democratic Party controls every federal office, every statewide office and over 80% of the Legislature. I'd hold my state's record in education (highest in the country and high public school performance), healthcare (nigh universal), and civil rights (gay marriage, black governor in a 90% white state) and even family values (lowest divorce rate, absolutely and as a % of marriages), law and order (crime rate ~25% below national average) and taxes (almost exactly average tax burden despite above) against any state's. Would it be nice if there was a reasonable alternative party to moderate some of the cronyism and such? Definitely, that's why we used to put guys like William Weld and Mitt Romney in our (extremely weak) governor's seat. But even that became too much with the swing towards radicalism that has occurred in the last decade.
Single party rule is superior to "moderation" when that means cutting your good ideas with a mixture of lunacy and malfeasance.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Anarchism?
Wrong-headed?
Factually and historically baseless?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Anyone who thinks that the correct way to deal with crazies in the government is to elect crazies from the "other side" regardless of what those crazies may believe is, well, stupid. If you want to control the crazy people in the government, stop electing crazy people to seats of power. "Balance" isn't the answer here, gorram it; identify and vote out the crazies.
I long for the day when the American people cease fellating "balance" and "moderation" and clamp down on the throbbing member of "sanity."
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Small government != Anarchism. What exactly is the historical, factual basis for anything that you're claiming?
Historically and factually, areas that go from having some or a lot of government influence to having little or none tend to turn into immense shitholes. This doesn't usually smooth out until government is reinserted.
California?
Restated: Smaller Government = Higher Quality of Life
Logical Extreme: No Government = Highest Quality of Life
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Man, one of these days we're gonna fix all the stupid shit we put in our state constitution and then see how awesome we are!!
The current situation out there is basically going to require either a repeal of the 2/3 rule or a straight out constitutional convention to re-write the damn thing.
Alternately: what happens if California declares bankruptcy?
It's going to require a constitutional convention. Even if there were a ballot measure to repeal the 2/3 rule, that would only fix one of the many, many problems afflicting our state government, most of which stem from poorly written ballot measures enacted as constitutional amendments.
If we declare bankruptcy, hopefully people will come to their senses and we'll have a constitutional convention. That said, I don't think either of these things is likely to happen. We'll most likely just continue to limp along under our current constitution.
California? Nah, no California here mate. Pacifica is the name of our state, look, we've got a shiny new not insane constitution to prove it too.
As opposed to the inefficiency and corruption that a lack of oversight and functioning public works encourages in the private sector.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
The Golden Mean Fallacy is the word you are looking for. It assumes that extremes are always incorrect and therefor the middel of the road is better. Also know as the appeal to moderation.
An example for the books: Some people want to make slavery illegal across the entire US. Some want to make slavery legal across the entire US. The moderate compromise would be to make slavery legal in half the states(The South). This argument forgets that the pro-slavery side is wrong!
Alternately: The Church of High Broderism, for the US political audience.
Ignoring the Somalia example briefly, the point of "Small Government = Better Country" doesn't seem to be factoring in the fact that we are the world superpower, and barring some sort of catastrophic nuclear accident or totally one-sided war, will still retain a gigantic military infrastructure even after we stop being that superpower.
Military forces are part of the national government, obviously. We're not in 19th century Germany. When a small representative government is tasked with managing a gigantic, extensive military and the industrial backing needed to maintain it, the end result is frequently something comparable to Argentina during and after the Second World War. In other words not a good thing.
And this is ignoring the fact that we are currently involved in two wars.
If you want small government, you'd better get rid of that giant military that the government has been propping up since before Operation Overlord, or you can be certain it will drag you into the depths of hell (or, more specifically, a military junta) with you. There is no such thing as a libertarian superpower.
Really, proponents of small civic government need to decide of if they're willing to give up the country's superpower status before they decide the Department of Education and Health and H.S. are obsolete.
Statistically, a Republican Congress and a Democratic Presidency delivers the lowest growth in government. This result may have been skewed by Gingrich and Clinton's Big Fight in 1995, though (source).
Crucially, Republicans don't actually want smaller government; in fact, Republican control over Congress and Presidency causes even faster expansion than Democratic control. Plausible reasons for this behavior are fairly simple (a la "only Nixon could go to China"-style models; Dems lose more political points with expansion in a divided government, implying that a Dem executive will expand less).
This being said, this still expands the size of government. A curiosity unique to US politics is that political battle lines are not drawn along economic class lines as in virtually all other Western liberal nations - with the result that both parties are beholden to powerful industry and interest groups, and too closely tied against their competition to attempt to shake off such lobbyists. In other countries a conservative party can break the unions and a liberal party can crush corporate welfare; in the US there are no such options.
The Republican socioconservative wing likes its high labor wages (no matter what Joe the alleged Plumber says). The Democrat's educated professional bloc typically support rigorous industry regulation (which often have the side effect of reducing competition. And also reducing grisly accidents, environmental rampages, and corporate malfeasance. But also competition).
The only way out is a major political realignment, which may or may not be happening right now under our feet. Maybe we'll wait another three generations before the next realignment election. Or maybe not. Depends how the Republicans decide to roll, doesn't it? See also: Lindsey Graham and Sanford, earlier in thread.
I would love to see a citation for this. Several of them, in fact. I mean, you'll excuse me for finding it counterintuitive, since, for instance, I can right now drive down a federal highway to visit a national park protected by the Department of the Interior and fish in a lake built by the Army Corps of Engineers and kept clean by the EPA, then cook the fish in a simple shelter built by the WPA on a George Foreman grill whose inventor is protected by the Patent Office, and also cook up some beans free of fecal matter and human fingers because of the FDA and USDA, then call my friend on a cell phone with a minimum of interference thanks to FCC regulations, then post about my awesome vacation on a global computer network created by the Defense Department.
After reading the beginning of your post I was about to make an argument in broad strokes about the inherent welfare loss caused by any substantial tax increases, but by the end of it I decided to take a different tack with my response.
1) The FDA and USDA institute a floor to how much feces your beans contain, but rest assured your beans (probably) contain no more than the legal limit of rat feces.
2) The cell phone industry has god-awful customer service, dodgy connectivity, stupidly high hidden fees, and no alternative providers because the government is complicit in allowing their colluding oligopoly to exist.
3) The internet was invented by the government? Al Gore, no doubt.
I'd rather spend my money on brand labels with reputations for clean food than pay it in taxes towards bloated, ineffective market regulating organizations.
If I wasn't at work I could look up a few citations for you. I recommend Alchian's research into central planning.
Reputations made how, by their advertising agents? You would trust that more?
And accept the part where sometimes you'd not be able to get the "good rep" product and have to accept the one consisting of rat poop?
Worst thing the government ever did was force people to learn about smoking from them and their scientists rather than tobacco companies.