WTH are we becoming?

[justplugit]

Used to be the USA was known as the land of Freedom, Opportuity and Compassion.
A days pay for a days work.

Seems the Progressives want us to become the land of FREE milk and honey all
on the backs of the workers. Freakin bunch of ninnies, now put your gloves on
children it's cold out, don't eat too much sugar, sit on your tail, we will take good
care of you and give you the latest Iphone and 52 in TV. All you have to do is
vote for us to be in power and then we will tell you what's good for you.

Too bad Obama didn't move to center rather than have his own, can't we just all
be fair, agenda. Like it's fair that the people who work provide free stuff for the people who don't want to work.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Too bad Obama didn't move to center rather than have his own, can't we just all
be fair, agenda. Like it's fair that the people who work provide free stuff for the people who don't want to work.

For the most part Obama has led from the center and that's been the problem. Had he led from the Left the GOP would have been in a position of forced compromise and taken some ownership over governance the past three years.

Instead he's led with middle positions which left himself open to attacks from both sides.

When people claim that we're becoming less free perhaps they should think of what else could be. Remember that regulation tends to be reactive, at times perhaps over-reactive for sure, but it's a response to forces the individual can't defend against.

Sugar...Hasn't it been big business that's infected our food supply with high-fructose corn syrup primarily because it's cheap and leads to larger profits? I'd note that consumer choices here have perhaps led to a few more options but not really modeled the macro behavior of producers. If anything they've just become more skilled at hiding where their profit margins come from.

-spence

[Karl F]

We are either well on our way, or are already at the desired end result.. those that truly run/own the country, be it hiding behind the tag left, right, liberal, conservitive, etc. want.. a Nation Polarized and Divided.. how else does the all powerful conquer, than to divide... FOX... MSNBC.. blame them all.. oldest political rule in the book.. divide and conquer.... unity and an informed and educated electorate.. .that would never work for the owner/rulers..



keep stirring the pot..it's boiling over.

but know this.. there is not a decent human being left involved in politics...with possibly one exception.. and most would say he is a loony...due to the preachings of both the left and the right... I'll pass on mentioning his name.. would only make the pot spew all over the stove top ..after all god forbid anyone has an opinion

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

For the most part Obama has led from the center and that's been the problem. Had he led from the Left the GOP would have been in a position of forced compromise and taken some ownership over governance the past three years.

Some of his policies may be viewed as "centrist," but there is disagreement as to what the "center" is, or if there even is such a thing. His major accomplishment, the HCB, is very leftist. His putative saving of General Motors and Chrysler was done in a leftist way, by government rather than free market. Don't know what the centrist view is on killing Bin Laden. And his determination to raise taxes on those making more than $250,000 regardless what effect it has on the economy, but simply on the basis of "fairness" is pure leftist. What ownership over governance has the GOP not taken or should have taken?


When people claim that we're becoming less free perhaps they should think of what else could be. Remember that regulation tends to be reactive, at times perhaps over-reactive for sure, but it's a response to forces the individual can't defend against.

Regulation by unelected agencies is different than regulation by elected representatives. It is not regulation by the will of the people, and often against that will, and by one-sided "experts" who don't seek a "centrist" solution against supposed forces, but dictate with economic results often contrary to intention. These administrative regulatory agencies are philosophical spawns of progressive political philosophy and legislation that have the good intention of ensuring what progressives called "effective liberty" as opposed to the "legal liberty" garanteed by the Constitution. Rather than leaving the function of liberty to individual effort and desire, which would unfairly advantage some over others, the central government would regulate the sphere of liberties by administrative fiat, defining liberty as that which is granted by government, not an unalienable right granted by nature or a creator. Thus all will be allowed an oxymoronic equalized liberty defined and granted by the government creating a narrowed "effective liberty" for all, not just the broad Constitutionaly legal liberty within which some might not be able to achieve at the same level as others. This becomes a new and more powerful force which the individual cannot defend against.

Sugar...Hasn't it been big business that's infected our food supply with high-fructose corn syrup primarily because it's cheap and leads to larger profits? I'd note that consumer choices here have perhaps led to a few more options but not really modeled the macro behavior of producers. If anything they've just become more skilled at hiding where their profit margins come from.

-spence

It is not out of Constitutional bounds for government agencies to inform the public about the dangers of food additives, and leave it up to individuals how to deal with it.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Sugar...Hasn't it been big business that's infected our food supply with high-fructose corn syrup primarily because it's cheap and leads to larger profits?

-spence

God forbid ways of cutting costs to make a better profit.
Let the buyer beware, people CAN educate themselves if they choose.
There must be a Govt. flyer somewhere that gives people that information.

[justplugit]

Come on Karl, tell us his name, or at least PM me.
I know one guy too, but he doesn't play the game and could never
make it to the top either.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

God forbid ways of cutting costs to make a better profit. Let the buyer beware, people CAN educate themselves if they choose. There must be a Govt. flyer somewhere that gives people that information.

S#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g nutritional value out of food to cut costs then marketing in often misleading ways to increase revenues helps nobody but the shareholders.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

S#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g nutritional value out of food to cut costs then marketing in often misleading ways to increase revenues helps nobody but the shareholders.

-spence

Actually, it "helps" out quite a few others such as the employees, the retailers and their employees, the governments in tax returns, but I get your point. I have been avoiding foods with high fructose corn syrup for years, and I have informed my family and friends of its reported dangers. I, nor they, have not had a problem getting nutritious food without the stuff. In fact, my major problem, and I'm not wealthy, probably lower middle-class, is too much good nutritious food. Overeating is probably as much or more of a problem in this country than the particular foods we eat. And making boogymen out of "evil" corporations and victims out of an ill-informed public in order to unconstitutionally regulate us is far worse than the dangers of high fructose corn syrup.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

S#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g nutritional value out of food to cut costs then marketing in often misleading ways to increase revenues helps nobody but the shareholders.

-spence

That's why I said, let the buyer beware and anyway aren't you supposed
to be keeping the Dow over 13,000?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Some of his policies may be viewed as "centrist," but there is disagreement as to what the "center" is, or if there even is such a thing. His major accomplishment, the HCB, is very leftist.

I think a leftist position on health care would have been for single payer a line that Obama avoided. Many of the controversial provisions of the actual bill have been proposed by Republicans over the past several decades.

His putative saving of General Motors and Chrysler was done in a leftist way, by government rather than free market.

Also supported by many Republicans as a matter of national interest. Of course, I'm taking a relative view here recognizing that some would say those same Republicans had shifted to the Left.

Don't know what the centrist view is on killing Bin Laden.

Not sure there is one, the spectrum sort of falls apart here.

And his determination to raise taxes on those making more than $250,000 regardless what effect it has on the economy, but simply on the basis of "fairness" is pure leftist.

I think the desire to raise taxes is born more from a matter of need to pay the bills that a punitive effort to soak the rich. The 250K threshold is there precisely because there is concern over economic impact.

What ownership over governance has the GOP not taken or should have taken?[/QUOTE]
By that I meant we would have increased joint ownership over policy rather than simple opposition.

Regulation by unelected agencies is different than regulation by elected representatives. It is not regulation by the will of the people, and often against that will, and by one-sided "experts" who don't seek a "centrist" solution against supposed forces, but dictate with economic results often contrary to intention. These administrative regulatory agencies are philosophical spawns of progressive political philosophy and legislation that have the good intention of ensuring what progressives called "effective liberty" as opposed to the "legal liberty" garanteed by the Constitution. Rather than leaving the function of liberty to individual effort and desire, which would unfairly advantage some over others, the central government would regulate the sphere of liberties by administrative fiat, defining liberty as that which is granted by government, not an unalienable right granted by nature or a creator. Thus all will be allowed an oxymoronic equalized liberty defined and granted by the government creating a narrowed "effective liberty" for all, not just the broad Constitutionaly legal liberty within which some might not be able to achieve at the same level as others. This becomes a new and more powerful force which the individual cannot defend against.

Unelected regulators are still appointed by elected officials and their bias shifts along with the electorate.

I'd note that polls pretty consistently show a majority favoring much government regulation that you'd probably find unappealing.

It is not out of Constitutional bounds for government agencies to inform the public about the dangers of food additives, and leave it up to individuals how to deal with it.

I think they've tried this and the result was that the individual isn't very responsible. When the accumulation of poor individual decisions ultimately weighs on the masses, there is a justification for doing something.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I think a leftist position on health care would have been for single payer a line that Obama avoided. Many of the controversial provisions of the actual bill have been proposed by Republicans over the past several decades.


Also supported by many Republicans as a matter of national interest. Of course, I'm taking a relative view here recognizing that some would say those same Republicans had shifted to the Left.


The way the bill is written and, in my opinion, the desire of those who espouse it, will eventually lead to a single payer government system. Yes, as in past threads, I don't make a major distinction between Republicans and Democrats. I have several times referred to the Republican shift to the left for survival and to Republicans becoming Democrat light. As I've stated before, the Center is the Constitution. Authoritarian divergence from that center to the right or left is a shift away from the center. A shift away from responsible individualism united by a governmental system whose duty is to protect and preserve individual rights, toward anarchy in one direction and all-powerful government in the other, is a shift away from the center. And the creation of a federal health care bill is a shift away from responsible individualism, and away from the Constitution which grants such responsibility to the States and the People, not to the National Gvt., and is a shift toward government power. And the individual mandate, legalistically, creates an all-powerful government that can "regulate" the people at will without obstruction. And yes, when the "national interest" as determined by a select few overrides individual interest in areas that the Constitution does not allow, it is a shift toward authoritarian rule which, if supported by the masses, becomes the tyranny of the majority. The reason I question a so-called "center" other than the Constitution, is the constant progressive shift to the left with every''compromise.'' Yesterday's center becomes todays left or right position, and a new center must be established. The trend has been mostly to the left, so there is no center (other than the Constitution), only a, as you like to say, a trajectory.


I think the desire to raise taxes is born more from a matter of need to pay the bills that a punitive effort to soak the rich. The 250K threshold is there precisely because there is concern over economic impact.

If there were a desire to pay the bills, the sophistry of stimulating the economy by going further in debt would not happen. Stimulating the economy has been more successful by lowering taxes not raising them. Going further in debt to get out of it is a moronic contradiction. And if raising taxes was for paying down the debt, then the great majority of those tax payers who reside under the 250K threshold should get their taxes raised which would create far more "revenue" to pay the bills.

What ownership over governance has the GOP not taken or should have taken?

By that I meant we would have increased joint ownership over policy rather than simple opposition.

That could be said for all administrations. Everbody acquiesce to the Presidents wishes to create "joint ownership" over policy. So what's the point of parties, of opinion, of alternate policies? After the election, the President rules as he wishes. Pretty much the preferred outcome of progressive ideology. And if the President's policies are damaging?

Unelected regulators are still appointed by elected officials and their bias shifts along with the electorate.

As I've said before, both parties and the SCOTUS are in for this administrative system. And though the regulators are appointed by elected officials, they are basically on their own with nudges by the President to rule without the advise or consent of neither the people nor the elected officials. They are fiefdoms with legislative, executive, and judicial power-- Madison's definition of tyranny.

I'd note that polls pretty consistently show a majority favoring much government regulation that you'd probably find unappealing

I think they've tried this and the result was that the individual isn't very responsible. When the accumulation of poor individual decisions ultimately weighs on the masses, there is a justification for doing something.

-spence[/QUOTE]

On the one hand you're saying the individual isn't very responsible, on the other hand we should be persuaded by polls that show a majority of individuals favoring something. One of the main objectives of early progressivism in this country was to shape public opinion through education, propaganda, creating a public will, and then presenting the administration that carries out that will. Woodrow Wilson said in his 1886 "Study of Administration":

"Whoever would effect a change in a modern constitutional government must first educate his fellow citizens to want SOME change. That done, he must persuade them to want the particular change he wants. He must first make public opinion willing to listen and then see to it that it listen to the right things. He must stir it up to search for an opinion, and then manage to put the right opinion in its way."

Under a system of individual responsibility, the individual should bare the weight of poor individual decisions. The progressive nanny state does not allow individuals to suffer their free choice to destroy their own life. The State must regulate individuals in such a way that individuals are free from harm. Thus individuals will have the protection of a proscribed "effective" liberty rather than suffer the dangers of far less limited Constitutional "legal" liberty. Woodrow Wilson also said in his 1887 "Socialism and democracy":

"The thesis of the state socialist is, that no line can be drawn between private and public affairs which the State may not cross at will; that omnipotence of legislation is the first postulate of all just political theory. . . For it is very clear that in fundamental theory socialsim and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same. They both rest at bottom upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members. Men as communities are supreme over men as individuals. Limits of wisdom and convenience to the public control there may be; limits of principle there are, upon strict analysis, none."

[JohnnyD]

I didn't read the whole thread but the only way I know how to answer the initial question...

"WTH are we becoming?"
The only answer is "Pathetic".

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

I didn't read the whole thread but the only way I know how to answer the initial question...

"WTH are we becoming?"

A country that posts random rhetoric on a fishing site on the interblab

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I think they've tried this and the result was that the individual isn't very responsible. When the accumulation of poor individual decisions ultimately weighs on the masses, there is a justification for doing something.

-spence

this reaches a whole new level of creepiness...

you could justify virtually anything on this basis....particularly if you believe the individual is subordinate to the state and not the other way around.....

I'm pretty sure that most of the planets evil dictators and oppressive regimes have operated under this premise.....depending on your definition of "poor individual decisions"...right?

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

this reaches a whole new level of creepiness...

you could justify virtually anything on this basis....particularly if you believe the individual is subordinate to the state and not the other way around.....

I'm pretty sure that most of the planets evil dictators and oppressive regimes have operated under this premise.....depending on your definition of "poor individual decisions"...right?

It's only creepy if you take some irrational view that the Government is trying to control every aspect of our lives. The simple fact is that the mundane decisions of the mass might not always drive a positive result as there will always be biases.

To be honest I don't think most people are really aware of how their lives are really shaped by others.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

A country that posts random rhetoric on a fishing site on the interblab

Ya, but that parts fun.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It's only creepy if you take some irrational view that the Government is trying to control every aspect of our lives.

What is irrational is believing that government is, in theory a living thing as was an early tenet of progressivism expressed by Woodrow Wilson in order to give "life" to the Constitution and release American government from the limitations imposed by that Constitution. He said:

"The Constitution was founded on the law of gravitation. The government was to exist and move by virtue of the efficacy of 'checks and balances.' The trouble with the theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing . . . No living thing can have its organs offset against each other as checks, and live . . . Living constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and practice. Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop. All that progressives ask or desire is permission--in an era when 'development, evolution,' is the scientific word--to interpret the Constitution according th the Darwinian principle"

Eliminating the system of checks and balances destroys the dispersion of power in the central government creating a unitary power. And making government a living agent of changing times rather than a legal system limited by a fundamentally unchanging structure transforms it into, as Herbert Croly, another prominent progressive said in 1915:

"A thoroughly representative government [which] is essentially government by men rather than by law." And: "it is doubtful how far any system can be considered really representative which does not bestow complete responsibility for the public welfare upon the government. The government must have the power to determine the Law instead of being circumscribed by the Law."

It may not be that the "government is TRYING to control every aspect of our lives", but the administrative state which can determine the law, in effect, does that. The intentions may be good, but the result is not so much "effective liberty" as much as it is "effective tyranny" of the soft kind. The INTENTION of the Health Care Bill may not have been to control every aspect of our lives, but it gives "government" the power to do so by being able to dictate and regulate what you must buy. The irony of a living constitution that cannot be an organism that checks itself and still live, is that all living things eventually do die. It is immutable law that survives and gives permanence to a society and system of government. By applying a Darwinian principle, which in itself is outdated, to government, creates instability, constant change by whim, with no garantees to individuals or groups. And as history progresses at faster rates, the change in government and law do so as well, ultimately creating the possibility of new systems weekly.

The simple fact is that the mundane decisions of the mass might not always drive a positive result as there will always be biases.

Without a constant, unchanging Law, not only will the individual be subject to those biases we will all be ruled by them. And the individual, under progressive ideology is subservient to "the mass" and to the "living" government. As John Dewey, another prominent early progressive said in 1935:

"the only form of enduring social organization that is now possible is one in which the new forces of poductivity are cooperatively controlled and used in the interest of the effective liberty and cultural development of the individuals that constitute society; Such a social order cannot be established by an unplanned and external convergence of the actions of separate individuals, each of whom is bent on personal private advantage . . . Organized social planning, put into effect for the creation of an order in which industry and finance are socially directed in behalf of institutions that provide the material basis for the cultural liberation and growth of individuals, is now the sole method of social action by which liberalism can realize its professed aims."

And further stated by another early progressive, Frank Goodnow in 1916:

" . . .if under the conditions of modern life it is the social group rather than the individual which is increasing in importance, if it is true that greater emphasis should be laid on social duties and less on individual rights, it is the duty of the University to call attention of the student to this fact and it is the duty of the student when he goes out into the world to do what in him lies to bring this truth home to his fellows."

And what is to be the effect of progressive social organization? Woodrow Wilson summed it up nicely. First, as the other progressives have stated over and over, you must educate the public opinion to accept the transformation of government, which Wilson said might take three generations:

"Institutions which one generation regards as only a makeshift approximation to the realization of a principle, the next generation honors as the nearest possible approximation to that principle, and the next worships as the principle itself. It takes scarcely three generations for the apotheosis."

And then: " . . . until finally, a generation or two from now . . . there will be the family in a great building whose noble architecture will at last be discosed, where men can live as a single community, cooperative as in a perfected, coordinated beehive.""

The Borg.

To be honest I don't think most people are really aware of how their lives are really shaped by others.

-spence

That is so true of those who live unexamined lives. And of those who accept the good intentions, or, at least the good promises, of politicians without holding the implementation of those intentions to the fire of the law and what that law, the Constitution allows. Such ignorance leads to rule by bias and the tyranny of the majority over the individual. And groups populated by powerless individuals are groups subervient to the ultimate power of the State. That is the intention of progressive ideology. If that is what we want, may that intention, and its effect, always be good.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

It's only creepy if you take some irrational view that the Government is trying to control every aspect of our lives.

-spence

or under the irrational view that they're not

I'm pretty sure that I can make a far stronger case that they are than you can make that they aren't