rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;)

[JayJuanGee]

... because they the welfare first reduces job opportunities. Remove jobs, then tell the people they are worth nothing because they don't have jobs, then give them the money.
 

The video is much more hilarious.   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=768h3Tz4Qik

[1714509663]

1714509663

[1714509663]

1714509663

[Erdogan]

your being too extreme and over generalizing... show me a complex society without some community entities (otherwise known as government).  

This is where you go wrong.  Community != government.  There's a MASSIVE difference between the two.

Governments are the result of complex societies, not the cause of them. You need to have wealth in order to afford a parasite class.

I don't see anything incorrect with this assertion.. and I do NOT see anything wrong with attempting a large variety of reforms to address parasite issues.

I suspect, however, based on some of our earlier communications on the topic that you are attributing parasite class to various poor people and regular people, when the biggest and most problematic parasite classes are the very wealthy who tend to use government to rob from the poor and regular people and to fill their coffers and to prevent prosperity of regular people in order that regular people can continue to be exploited and taken advantage of and blamed for social ills.

This is a false dichotomy. It is a bogus argument to create tension, to hide the real problem. The parasite class is the political class, those who think they can decide over others using coercion. They buy support from the poor, and create poorness, through the spoils system, and the rich through the same way through corporate welfare. Everything is paid for by the victims themselves. A policy of tension, or  divide and conquer.

Sounds like you have been watching too much fox news and the like to be so detached from reality.

Not fox. By the way, reality seems to be an in-word currently.

I guess part of my point is that your perception seems to be extremely diluted if you believe that poor people are moving any kind of corruption in any kind of meaningful way.  In many instances (societies), especially in the US of A, poor people receive a very minor fraction of the benefits, and a lot of the major breaks go to the rich banks and large companies tied to finance, military, pharmacy, energy etc.

I know, but if you live off the state, you become anxious if the state's income is threatened. The same goes for all kinds of government jobs. It is not corruption. It is a delusion, because they would all be better off with a small government or no government. I don't expect everybody to agree with that without a discussion.

If you are focusing on poor people getting too many benefits or government workers being too spoiled or having too much job security, then in my view you are focusing on pie crumbs while the banks, oil tycoons, military contractors and pharmaceutical industries are running off with the lion's share of the resources and corrupting the government with money influences.  

Surely, it would be good if the people could wrestle back control of their various elected officials and the election process in order that these people would be forced to work in the public interest rather than being bought out and being scared to go against insurance companies for example...

I don't really see, short of some kind of revolution, that you could completely abolish these many governmental infrastructures.. and seems that many people agree that there is too much money corruption that is being allowed to influence elected reps away from true fighting for the needs of regular people.

Don't try to blame hate on me. The statists are the ones who peddle tension and hate. I know that corporations get welfare, and it should end. It (corporate welfare) should end first, really, (individual) welfare should end last, if you can envision a gradual diminishing of government. Still, welfare as it works, is not good for the recipients, because they the welfare first reduces job opportunities. Remove jobs, then tell the people they are worth nothing because they don't have jobs, then give them the money.
 

We have a pretty high level of agreement here (in the above bolded part);  however, the rest of your statement fails to focus on this point, and you seem to get distracted by crumbs and engaging your energy in such baloney talk about the crumbs.. when a lot of the major corruption and stealing from the government coffers is at a very much higher and more abstract level.. including currency which goes in the pockets of bank financiers and other wealthy folk that do NOT need more money.... and goes away from infrastructure and quality of life issues in order that regular people are desperate and get exploited in the workplace.. to the extent that they can find meaningful and fulfilling jobs that have not been exported to some place in which less than $1 per hour is paid.

I agree with all that, wtf. The worst is the general upfucking of the money system, QE and ZIRP. Then corporate wellfare. Go through all regulations, remove those that are unecessary and bad. As you analyze regulations, you will find that all regulations are distortions that take away freedom and prosperity. You  end up with the traditional basic functions of the state, courts, police military. You need roughly six months of thinking to also let those go.

[prophetx]

... because they the welfare first reduces job opportunities. Remove jobs, then tell the people they are worth nothing because they don't have jobs, then give them the money.
 

The video is much more hilarious.   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=768h3Tz4Qik

that American flag should be replaced with an EU flag

[prophetx]

your being too extreme and over generalizing... show me a complex society without some community entities (otherwise known as government).  

This is where you go wrong.  Community != government.  There's a MASSIVE difference between the two.

Governments are the result of complex societies, not the cause of them. You need to have wealth in order to afford a parasite class.

I don't see anything incorrect with this assertion.. and I do NOT see anything wrong with attempting a large variety of reforms to address parasite issues.

I suspect, however, based on some of our earlier communications on the topic that you are attributing parasite class to various poor people and regular people, when the biggest and most problematic parasite classes are the very wealthy who tend to use government to rob from the poor and regular people and to fill their coffers and to prevent prosperity of regular people in order that regular people can continue to be exploited and taken advantage of and blamed for social ills.

This is a false dichotomy. It is a bogus argument to create tension, to hide the real problem. The parasite class is the political class, those who think they can decide over others using coercion. They buy support from the poor, and create poorness, through the spoils system, and the rich through the same way through corporate welfare. Everything is paid for by the victims themselves. A policy of tension, or  divide and conquer.

Sounds like you have been watching too much fox news and the like to be so detached from reality.

Not fox. By the way, reality seems to be an in-word currently.

I guess part of my point is that your perception seems to be extremely diluted if you believe that poor people are moving any kind of corruption in any kind of meaningful way.  In many instances (societies), especially in the US of A, poor people receive a very minor fraction of the benefits, and a lot of the major breaks go to the rich banks and large companies tied to finance, military, pharmacy, energy etc.

I know, but if you live off the state, you become anxious if the state's income is threatened. The same goes for all kinds of government jobs. It is not corruption. It is a delusion, because they would all be better off with a small government or no government. I don't expect everybody to agree with that without a discussion.

If you are focusing on poor people getting too many benefits or government workers being too spoiled or having too much job security, then in my view you are focusing on pie crumbs while the banks, oil tycoons, military contractors and pharmaceutical industries are running off with the lion's share of the resources and corrupting the government with money influences.  

Surely, it would be good if the people could wrestle back control of their various elected officials and the election process in order that these people would be forced to work in the public interest rather than being bought out and being scared to go against insurance companies for example...

I don't really see, short of some kind of revolution, that you could completely abolish these many governmental infrastructures.. and seems that many people agree that there is too much money corruption that is being allowed to influence elected reps away from true fighting for the needs of regular people.

Don't try to blame hate on me. The statists are the ones who peddle tension and hate. I know that corporations get welfare, and it should end. It (corporate welfare) should end first, really, (individual) welfare should end last, if you can envision a gradual diminishing of government. Still, welfare as it works, is not good for the recipients, because they the welfare first reduces job opportunities. Remove jobs, then tell the people they are worth nothing because they don't have jobs, then give them the money.
 

We have a pretty high level of agreement here (in the above bolded part);  however, the rest of your statement fails to focus on this point, and you seem to get distracted by crumbs and engaging your energy in such baloney talk about the crumbs.. when a lot of the major corruption and stealing from the government coffers is at a very much higher and more abstract level.. including currency which goes in the pockets of bank financiers and other wealthy folk that do NOT need more money.... and goes away from infrastructure and quality of life issues in order that regular people are desperate and get exploited in the workplace.. to the extent that they can find meaningful and fulfilling jobs that have not been exported to some place in which less than $1 per hour is paid.

I agree with all that, wtf. The worst is the general upfucking of the money system, QE and ZIRP. Then corporate wellfare. Go through all regulations, remove those that are unecessary and bad. As you analyze regulations, you will find that all regulations are distortions that take away freedom and prosperity. You  end up with the traditional basic functions of the state, courts, police military. You need roughly six months of thinking to also let those go.

yea until Billy Bob and his gang of bubba's show up to your house with m16 assault rifles demanding tribute payments for protecting your property

[Erdogan]

your being too extreme and over generalizing... show me a complex society without some community entities (otherwise known as government).  

This is where you go wrong.  Community != government.  There's a MASSIVE difference between the two.

Governments are the result of complex societies, not the cause of them. You need to have wealth in order to afford a parasite class.

I don't see anything incorrect with this assertion.. and I do NOT see anything wrong with attempting a large variety of reforms to address parasite issues.

I suspect, however, based on some of our earlier communications on the topic that you are attributing parasite class to various poor people and regular people, when the biggest and most problematic parasite classes are the very wealthy who tend to use government to rob from the poor and regular people and to fill their coffers and to prevent prosperity of regular people in order that regular people can continue to be exploited and taken advantage of and blamed for social ills.

This is a false dichotomy. It is a bogus argument to create tension, to hide the real problem. The parasite class is the political class, those who think they can decide over others using coercion. They buy support from the poor, and create poorness, through the spoils system, and the rich through the same way through corporate welfare. Everything is paid for by the victims themselves. A policy of tension, or  divide and conquer.

Sounds like you have been watching too much fox news and the like to be so detached from reality.

Not fox. By the way, reality seems to be an in-word currently.

I guess part of my point is that your perception seems to be extremely diluted if you believe that poor people are moving any kind of corruption in any kind of meaningful way.  In many instances (societies), especially in the US of A, poor people receive a very minor fraction of the benefits, and a lot of the major breaks go to the rich banks and large companies tied to finance, military, pharmacy, energy etc.

I know, but if you live off the state, you become anxious if the state's income is threatened. The same goes for all kinds of government jobs. It is not corruption. It is a delusion, because they would all be better off with a small government or no government. I don't expect everybody to agree with that without a discussion.

If you are focusing on poor people getting too many benefits or government workers being too spoiled or having too much job security, then in my view you are focusing on pie crumbs while the banks, oil tycoons, military contractors and pharmaceutical industries are running off with the lion's share of the resources and corrupting the government with money influences.  

Surely, it would be good if the people could wrestle back control of their various elected officials and the election process in order that these people would be forced to work in the public interest rather than being bought out and being scared to go against insurance companies for example...

I don't really see, short of some kind of revolution, that you could completely abolish these many governmental infrastructures.. and seems that many people agree that there is too much money corruption that is being allowed to influence elected reps away from true fighting for the needs of regular people.

Don't try to blame hate on me. The statists are the ones who peddle tension and hate. I know that corporations get welfare, and it should end. It (corporate welfare) should end first, really, (individual) welfare should end last, if you can envision a gradual diminishing of government. Still, welfare as it works, is not good for the recipients, because they the welfare first reduces job opportunities. Remove jobs, then tell the people they are worth nothing because they don't have jobs, then give them the money.
 

We have a pretty high level of agreement here (in the above bolded part);  however, the rest of your statement fails to focus on this point, and you seem to get distracted by crumbs and engaging your energy in such baloney talk about the crumbs.. when a lot of the major corruption and stealing from the government coffers is at a very much higher and more abstract level.. including currency which goes in the pockets of bank financiers and other wealthy folk that do NOT need more money.... and goes away from infrastructure and quality of life issues in order that regular people are desperate and get exploited in the workplace.. to the extent that they can find meaningful and fulfilling jobs that have not been exported to some place in which less than $1 per hour is paid.

I agree with all that, wtf. The worst is the general upfucking of the money system, QE and ZIRP. Then corporate wellfare. Go through all regulations, remove those that are unecessary and bad. As you analyze regulations, you will find that all regulations are distortions that take away freedom and prosperity. You  end up with the traditional basic functions of the state, courts, police military. You need roughly six months of thinking to also let those go.

yea until Billy Bob and his gang of bubba's show up to your house with m16 assault rifles demanding tribute payments for protecting your property

You forgot self defense, including self defence in associations. And importantly, you forgot that the mafia will only tax you, if the cost of collection is less than the proceeds.

Edit: And... you forgot that you need to be a libertarian, then think 6 months... 

[Alonzo Ewing]

Way to ignore my question.

I addressed your question sufficiently, so accordingly, probably, you should respond to my various points if you have anything substantive to add in this direction.. .

But you didn't answer it. 

In this thread, you've made some statements which show you don't really have a grasp of some basics--things like equating government with community, "will of the people", etc, and you've brushed aside some arguments with Fox News references.

So I'm merely asking to start a civil dialogue with you.  I promise to stay polite.  Please respond:

What is your definition of "government"?

My definition can be stated in a sentence.  How about you?

[JayJuanGee]

your being too extreme and over generalizing... show me a complex society without some community entities (otherwise known as government).  

This is where you go wrong.  Community != government.  There's a MASSIVE difference between the two.

Governments are the result of complex societies, not the cause of them. You need to have wealth in order to afford a parasite class.

I don't see anything incorrect with this assertion.. and I do NOT see anything wrong with attempting a large variety of reforms to address parasite issues.

I suspect, however, based on some of our earlier communications on the topic that you are attributing parasite class to various poor people and regular people, when the biggest and most problematic parasite classes are the very wealthy who tend to use government to rob from the poor and regular people and to fill their coffers and to prevent prosperity of regular people in order that regular people can continue to be exploited and taken advantage of and blamed for social ills.

This is a false dichotomy. It is a bogus argument to create tension, to hide the real problem. The parasite class is the political class, those who think they can decide over others using coercion. They buy support from the poor, and create poorness, through the spoils system, and the rich through the same way through corporate welfare. Everything is paid for by the victims themselves. A policy of tension, or  divide and conquer.

Sounds like you have been watching too much fox news and the like to be so detached from reality.

Not fox. By the way, reality seems to be an in-word currently.

I guess part of my point is that your perception seems to be extremely diluted if you believe that poor people are moving any kind of corruption in any kind of meaningful way.  In many instances (societies), especially in the US of A, poor people receive a very minor fraction of the benefits, and a lot of the major breaks go to the rich banks and large companies tied to finance, military, pharmacy, energy etc.

I know, but if you live off the state, you become anxious if the state's income is threatened. The same goes for all kinds of government jobs. It is not corruption. It is a delusion, because they would all be better off with a small government or no government. I don't expect everybody to agree with that without a discussion.

If you are focusing on poor people getting too many benefits or government workers being too spoiled or having too much job security, then in my view you are focusing on pie crumbs while the banks, oil tycoons, military contractors and pharmaceutical industries are running off with the lion's share of the resources and corrupting the government with money influences.  

Surely, it would be good if the people could wrestle back control of their various elected officials and the election process in order that these people would be forced to work in the public interest rather than being bought out and being scared to go against insurance companies for example...

I don't really see, short of some kind of revolution, that you could completely abolish these many governmental infrastructures.. and seems that many people agree that there is too much money corruption that is being allowed to influence elected reps away from true fighting for the needs of regular people.

Don't try to blame hate on me. The statists are the ones who peddle tension and hate. I know that corporations get welfare, and it should end. It (corporate welfare) should end first, really, (individual) welfare should end last, if you can envision a gradual diminishing of government. Still, welfare as it works, is not good for the recipients, because they the welfare first reduces job opportunities. Remove jobs, then tell the people they are worth nothing because they don't have jobs, then give them the money.
 

We have a pretty high level of agreement here (in the above bolded part);  however, the rest of your statement fails to focus on this point, and you seem to get distracted by crumbs and engaging your energy in such baloney talk about the crumbs.. when a lot of the major corruption and stealing from the government coffers is at a very much higher and more abstract level.. including currency which goes in the pockets of bank financiers and other wealthy folk that do NOT need more money.... and goes away from infrastructure and quality of life issues in order that regular people are desperate and get exploited in the workplace.. to the extent that they can find meaningful and fulfilling jobs that have not been exported to some place in which less than $1 per hour is paid.

I agree with all that, wtf. The worst is the general upfucking of the money system, QE and ZIRP. Then corporate wellfare. Go through all regulations, remove those that are unecessary and bad. As you analyze regulations, you will find that all regulations are distortions that take away freedom and prosperity. You  end up with the traditional basic functions of the state, courts, police military. You need roughly six months of thinking to also let those go.

I don't believe that by nature regulations take away freedom from individuals - except to the extent which they are focused to give advantages to the wealthy.  Surely, most of our lives would be much better if infrastructure was better, and we are able to pursue jobs and dreams with dignity.  Frequently we are told that regulation and the government are the bad guys; however, if we did not have regulations and government, it is possible that we would be getting screwed even worse by the rich and powerful b/c there would be little to no infrastructure and we would all be living in cabins with dirty water killing us.

Personally, I have the sense that the government is the vehicle to keep in check the exploiters who become too powerful and lose their sense of community (b/c of their greed); however, there are a lot of ways that government has been coopted.. and distracted to work on the wrong side and to complicate the way in which regular people are being screwed by the rich and powerful... the rich and powerful do NOT contribute their fair share, and they strive to separate themselves from contributing to community... b/c they are too busy either stealing more of what they do NOT need and/or preventing those resources from being used for broader and common application(s).

[JayJuanGee]

... because they the welfare first reduces job opportunities. Remove jobs, then tell the people they are worth nothing because they don't have jobs, then give them the money.
 

The video is much more hilarious.   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=768h3Tz4Qik

that American flag should be replaced with an EU flag

Why?

[JayJuanGee]

Way to ignore my question.

I addressed your question sufficiently, so accordingly, probably, you should respond to my various points if you have anything substantive to add in this direction.. .

But you didn't answer it. 

In this thread, you've made some statements which show you don't really have a grasp of some basics--things like equating government with community, "will of the people", etc, and you've brushed aside some arguments with Fox News references.

So I'm merely asking to start a civil dialogue with you.  I promise to stay polite.  Please respond:

What is your definition of "government"?

My definition can be stated in a sentence.  How about you?

We seem to be in disagreement regarding the responsiveness of my previous responses, so it seems to be a big waste of time to engage in further exchange regarding these matters.  I believe that I have already sufficiently stated my position and that was merely challenging the statements of others regarding their description of no need for taxes and that government services do NOT serve useful societal purposes in light of how much they cost. 

In fact one of the most efficient and effective government services in the world is the social security system that was established in the US of A in the 1930s.  Yet, nonetheless, there is NO burden on me to back up the various multitude of status quo system, even though I have a large number of gripes regarding them.  In essence, so far, I have NOT made any real and/or significant claims regarding the dismantling of such systems in large ways, as was the logical outgrowth of the original statement made by Rpietila (that I have repeated several times to be the origination of this line of discussion).

[Alonzo Ewing]

Oh well.  You seem very comfortable in what you believe you know--a dangerous trait. 

Good luck to you.

[Erdogan]

your being too extreme and over generalizing... show me a complex society without some community entities (otherwise known as government).  

This is where you go wrong.  Community != government.  There's a MASSIVE difference between the two.

Governments are the result of complex societies, not the cause of them. You need to have wealth in order to afford a parasite class.

I don't see anything incorrect with this assertion.. and I do NOT see anything wrong with attempting a large variety of reforms to address parasite issues.

I suspect, however, based on some of our earlier communications on the topic that you are attributing parasite class to various poor people and regular people, when the biggest and most problematic parasite classes are the very wealthy who tend to use government to rob from the poor and regular people and to fill their coffers and to prevent prosperity of regular people in order that regular people can continue to be exploited and taken advantage of and blamed for social ills.

This is a false dichotomy. It is a bogus argument to create tension, to hide the real problem. The parasite class is the political class, those who think they can decide over others using coercion. They buy support from the poor, and create poorness, through the spoils system, and the rich through the same way through corporate welfare. Everything is paid for by the victims themselves. A policy of tension, or  divide and conquer.

Sounds like you have been watching too much fox news and the like to be so detached from reality.

Not fox. By the way, reality seems to be an in-word currently.

I guess part of my point is that your perception seems to be extremely diluted if you believe that poor people are moving any kind of corruption in any kind of meaningful way.  In many instances (societies), especially in the US of A, poor people receive a very minor fraction of the benefits, and a lot of the major breaks go to the rich banks and large companies tied to finance, military, pharmacy, energy etc.

I know, but if you live off the state, you become anxious if the state's income is threatened. The same goes for all kinds of government jobs. It is not corruption. It is a delusion, because they would all be better off with a small government or no government. I don't expect everybody to agree with that without a discussion.

If you are focusing on poor people getting too many benefits or government workers being too spoiled or having too much job security, then in my view you are focusing on pie crumbs while the banks, oil tycoons, military contractors and pharmaceutical industries are running off with the lion's share of the resources and corrupting the government with money influences.  

Surely, it would be good if the people could wrestle back control of their various elected officials and the election process in order that these people would be forced to work in the public interest rather than being bought out and being scared to go against insurance companies for example...

I don't really see, short of some kind of revolution, that you could completely abolish these many governmental infrastructures.. and seems that many people agree that there is too much money corruption that is being allowed to influence elected reps away from true fighting for the needs of regular people.

Don't try to blame hate on me. The statists are the ones who peddle tension and hate. I know that corporations get welfare, and it should end. It (corporate welfare) should end first, really, (individual) welfare should end last, if you can envision a gradual diminishing of government. Still, welfare as it works, is not good for the recipients, because they the welfare first reduces job opportunities. Remove jobs, then tell the people they are worth nothing because they don't have jobs, then give them the money.
 

We have a pretty high level of agreement here (in the above bolded part);  however, the rest of your statement fails to focus on this point, and you seem to get distracted by crumbs and engaging your energy in such baloney talk about the crumbs.. when a lot of the major corruption and stealing from the government coffers is at a very much higher and more abstract level.. including currency which goes in the pockets of bank financiers and other wealthy folk that do NOT need more money.... and goes away from infrastructure and quality of life issues in order that regular people are desperate and get exploited in the workplace.. to the extent that they can find meaningful and fulfilling jobs that have not been exported to some place in which less than $1 per hour is paid.

I agree with all that, wtf. The worst is the general upfucking of the money system, QE and ZIRP. Then corporate wellfare. Go through all regulations, remove those that are unecessary and bad. As you analyze regulations, you will find that all regulations are distortions that take away freedom and prosperity. You  end up with the traditional basic functions of the state, courts, police military. You need roughly six months of thinking to also let those go.

I don't believe that by nature regulations take away freedom from individuals - except to the extent which they are focused to give advantages to the wealthy.  Surely, most of our lives would be much better if infrastructure was better, and we are able to pursue jobs and dreams with dignity.  Frequently we are told that regulation and the government are the bad guys; however, if we did not have regulations and government, it is possible that we would be getting screwed even worse by the rich and powerful b/c there would be little to no infrastructure and we would all be living in cabins with dirty water killing us.

Personally, I have the sense that the government is the vehicle to keep in check the exploiters who become too powerful and lose their sense of community (b/c of their greed); however, there are a lot of ways that government has been coopted.. and distracted to work on the wrong side and to complicate the way in which regular people are being screwed by the rich and powerful... the rich and powerful do NOT contribute their fair share, and they strive to separate themselves from contributing to community... b/c they are too busy either stealing more of what they do NOT need and/or preventing those resources from being used for broader and common application(s).

I'm in with Alonzo Ewing here. Some openmindedness and thinking reqired. See you in the future.

[JayJuanGee]

your being too extreme and over generalizing... show me a complex society without some community entities (otherwise known as government).  

This is where you go wrong.  Community != government.  There's a MASSIVE difference between the two.

Governments are the result of complex societies, not the cause of them. You need to have wealth in order to afford a parasite class.

I don't see anything incorrect with this assertion.. and I do NOT see anything wrong with attempting a large variety of reforms to address parasite issues.

I suspect, however, based on some of our earlier communications on the topic that you are attributing parasite class to various poor people and regular people, when the biggest and most problematic parasite classes are the very wealthy who tend to use government to rob from the poor and regular people and to fill their coffers and to prevent prosperity of regular people in order that regular people can continue to be exploited and taken advantage of and blamed for social ills.

This is a false dichotomy. It is a bogus argument to create tension, to hide the real problem. The parasite class is the political class, those who think they can decide over others using coercion. They buy support from the poor, and create poorness, through the spoils system, and the rich through the same way through corporate welfare. Everything is paid for by the victims themselves. A policy of tension, or  divide and conquer.

Sounds like you have been watching too much fox news and the like to be so detached from reality.

Not fox. By the way, reality seems to be an in-word currently.

I guess part of my point is that your perception seems to be extremely diluted if you believe that poor people are moving any kind of corruption in any kind of meaningful way.  In many instances (societies), especially in the US of A, poor people receive a very minor fraction of the benefits, and a lot of the major breaks go to the rich banks and large companies tied to finance, military, pharmacy, energy etc.

I know, but if you live off the state, you become anxious if the state's income is threatened. The same goes for all kinds of government jobs. It is not corruption. It is a delusion, because they would all be better off with a small government or no government. I don't expect everybody to agree with that without a discussion.

If you are focusing on poor people getting too many benefits or government workers being too spoiled or having too much job security, then in my view you are focusing on pie crumbs while the banks, oil tycoons, military contractors and pharmaceutical industries are running off with the lion's share of the resources and corrupting the government with money influences.  

Surely, it would be good if the people could wrestle back control of their various elected officials and the election process in order that these people would be forced to work in the public interest rather than being bought out and being scared to go against insurance companies for example...

I don't really see, short of some kind of revolution, that you could completely abolish these many governmental infrastructures.. and seems that many people agree that there is too much money corruption that is being allowed to influence elected reps away from true fighting for the needs of regular people.

Don't try to blame hate on me. The statists are the ones who peddle tension and hate. I know that corporations get welfare, and it should end. It (corporate welfare) should end first, really, (individual) welfare should end last, if you can envision a gradual diminishing of government. Still, welfare as it works, is not good for the recipients, because they the welfare first reduces job opportunities. Remove jobs, then tell the people they are worth nothing because they don't have jobs, then give them the money.
 

We have a pretty high level of agreement here (in the above bolded part);  however, the rest of your statement fails to focus on this point, and you seem to get distracted by crumbs and engaging your energy in such baloney talk about the crumbs.. when a lot of the major corruption and stealing from the government coffers is at a very much higher and more abstract level.. including currency which goes in the pockets of bank financiers and other wealthy folk that do NOT need more money.... and goes away from infrastructure and quality of life issues in order that regular people are desperate and get exploited in the workplace.. to the extent that they can find meaningful and fulfilling jobs that have not been exported to some place in which less than $1 per hour is paid.

I agree with all that, wtf. The worst is the general upfucking of the money system, QE and ZIRP. Then corporate wellfare. Go through all regulations, remove those that are unecessary and bad. As you analyze regulations, you will find that all regulations are distortions that take away freedom and prosperity. You  end up with the traditional basic functions of the state, courts, police military. You need roughly six months of thinking to also let those go.

I don't believe that by nature regulations take away freedom from individuals - except to the extent which they are focused to give advantages to the wealthy.  Surely, most of our lives would be much better if infrastructure was better, and we are able to pursue jobs and dreams with dignity.  Frequently we are told that regulation and the government are the bad guys; however, if we did not have regulations and government, it is possible that we would be getting screwed even worse by the rich and powerful b/c there would be little to no infrastructure and we would all be living in cabins with dirty water killing us.

Personally, I have the sense that the government is the vehicle to keep in check the exploiters who become too powerful and lose their sense of community (b/c of their greed); however, there are a lot of ways that government has been coopted.. and distracted to work on the wrong side and to complicate the way in which regular people are being screwed by the rich and powerful... the rich and powerful do NOT contribute their fair share, and they strive to separate themselves from contributing to community... b/c they are too busy either stealing more of what they do NOT need and/or preventing those resources from being used for broader and common application(s).

I'm in with Alonzo Ewing here. Some openmindedness and thinking reqired. See you in the future.

 

You call lack of engagement and explanation open-mindedness?  Yes, we seem to be at loggerheads, but I doubt that either you or Alonzo Ewing is more open minded than me, merely because you are attempting to get me to answer some stupid-ass questions about defining government, when I have sufficiently engaged in such definitions to the extent it is necessary.  Having various opinions does NOT make a person lacking in open-minded-ness, and refusing to engage in tangent discussions also does NOT cause a person to be lacking in open minded ness.  I am fine with agreeing to disagree or at least leaving this discussion area for the time being - even though it is a theme that frequently arises in the bitcoin space.

[birr]

Read any good books lately?

[RoadStress]

JayJuanGee and Erdogan please learn how to snip quotes. BIG quotes are hurting everyone's eyes.

[av123]

JayJuanGee and Erdogan please learn how to snip quotes. BIG quotes are hurting everyone's eyes.

And where's the quality TA? 

[btcney]

So, do we have a double bottom?

[Erdogan]

JayJuanGee and Erdogan please learn how to snip quotes. BIG quotes are hurting everyone's eyes.

I like full quoting.

[JayJuanGee]

JayJuanGee and Erdogan please learn how to snip quotes. BIG quotes are hurting everyone's eyes.

I like full quoting.

Me too....        We agree... you jerk...     

[Erdogan]

JayJuanGee and Erdogan please learn how to snip quotes. BIG quotes are hurting everyone's eyes.

I like full quoting.

Me too....        We agree... you jerk...     

We agree on a lot...

[dnaleor]

JayJuanGee and Erdogan please learn how to snip quotes. BIG quotes are hurting everyone's eyes.

I like full quoting.

Me too....        We agree... you jerk...     

We agree on a lot...

Or should it be "quertes"?