Republican Brown wins Ted Kennedy's Senate Seat

[manasecret]

Seems kind of silly to me. I don't think government can exist without being patronizing to some people. If the masses (including you and me) don't want anyone telling them what to do, that I think taken to the extreme would be anarchy. The fact is, despite what the masses may think it wants, they/we all do want some form of control, which means someone in power telling people what to do.

But maybe I'm not getting it. Care to elaborate, with examples perhaps?

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by manasecret

Seems kind of silly to me. I don't think government can exist without being patronizing to some people. If the masses (including you and me) don't want anyone telling them what to do, that I think taken to the extreme would be anarchy. The fact is, despite what the masses may think it wants, they/we all do want some form of control, which means someone in power telling people what to do.

But maybe I'm not getting it. Care to elaborate, with examples perhaps?

I didn't that article the same way you did. I don't feel the author is advocating anarchy by any means. I think he was talking about populist arguments in today's day and age, and how the dems are aiming their barbs at an old audience and thats not fitting with today's far more well educated and informed society who have created their own boogeymen and don't need a political party to create them. As Seth Godin says when speaking about social networking technology "No one cares about you, they care about them." This can be translated culturally to massive shifts in how people view politics and governance.



Also, anarchy is an unworkable system because inevitably power will recentralize through force, but also keep in mind all government is inherently oppressive. Any law that is passed oppresses all that fall under it. Now many times these laws are necessary to maintain an individual's freedom, such as laws against violent behevior, theft, fraud, etc because those crimes are example of one individual oppressing another. It think we can all agree that it is right for a government to oppress those that would oppress others.

But laws and government can easily grow, often with good intentions, to inhibit one's personal liberty. There cannot be individual liberty without individual responsibility. When a government or organization takes responsibility for an individual, it then controls that individual because he or she is now dependent on it.

In the end, it's a balancing act to decide to what level we wish to be controlled, and I think that is the heart of the debate that is taking place right now.

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." ~ Thomas Paine

[manasecret]

Originally Posted by Professor S

I didn't that article the same way you did. I don't feel the author is advocating anarchy by any means. I think he was talking about populist arguments in today's day and age, and how the dems are aiming their barbs at an old audience and thats not fitting with today's far more well educated and informed society who have created their own boogeymen and don't need a political party to create them. As Seth Godin says when speaking about social networking technology "No one cares about you, they care about them." This can be translated culturally to massive shifts in how people view politics and governance.

Ok I see where I misunderstood his point.

First, to be clear, I didn't mean that the article was advocating anarchy. I meant that by saying "the masses today don't think they need or want tutors, directors, counselors, union leaders, civil servants or anybody else managing their affairs. They hunger and thirst for social and political autonomy," he in turn seems to be saying that -- taken to the extreme of "no one telling me what to do" -- the masses desire anarchy. He's not advocating it, but saying that the masses want it. But what I was saying (and you pretty much reiterated with the bit about anarchy) -- despite what the masses may think they want, they actually do want some form of government -- and therefore they want some patronizing person or persons at the top telling us what to do or not to do, or as you said oppressing us in some form. So my point was, I see little reason to pander to the desires of the masses that they don't really want despite what they think.

But anyway, I see that I didn't read his point right. And I think my misunderstanding comes down to this quote:

It is extremely difficult for people steeped in this mindset (as I was for many years) to wrap their heads around the core idea powering American politics in the last generation: a revolt by the 'dumbass masses' against this basic social map of the world. Huge chunks of the masses today don't think they need or want tutors, directors, counselors, union leaders, civil servants or anybody else managing their affairs. They hunger and thirst for social and political autonomy -- it is the liberal world view that they long to be freed of.

The part in bold being the key part that I missed. Obviously by his quotes, he means the once uneducated masses are for more educated now, but are still treated as the uneducated, dumbass masses by leaders. So basically our leaders are still operating on the old way of leading the dumbass masses, while the masses have moved on to self-autonomy. The leaders haven't caught on to the open-internet, open-software, open-design, open-ideal that has cropped up with the internet age, the idea behind Wikipedia and Firefox and Linux and Apache and Arduino (open-hardware platform) and on and on where the masses together are more powerful than any one chosen individual or group of individuals.

Does that sound right?

If it does, do you think that's why the Dems are losing control?

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by manasecret

Does that sound right?

If it does, do you think that's why the Dems are losing control?

Yes, I think that sounds like a right interpretation. I also think it's one main reason that they're losing control.

Keep in mind, I think most far right wing Republicans have the same problem, and the Republicans better take notice if and when they regain power. The far left and far right both want control, they just want control over different aspects onf our society, and through he society, the individual.

I think thats why people are rejecting social conservatoves as well as leftist democrats, and independents are growing faster than they have in history.

Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. ~ Ayn Rand

[manasecret]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Yes, I think that sounds like a right interpretation. I also think it's one main reason that they're losing control.

Keep in mind, I think most far right wing Republicans have the same problem, and the Republicans better take notice if and when they regain power. The far left and far right both want control, they just want control over different aspects onf our society, and through he society, the individual.

I think thats why people are rejecting social conservatoves as well as leftist democrats, and independents are growing faster than they have in history.

Then I agree, political leaders on both sides aren't embracing the open-ideal or at least understanding its power over society right now and trying to implement some of it. I hope they do because I see the power everyday of the new socialism. I know the Obama administration at least made some feigns at opening up the government, though I'm guessing he hasn't succeeded much at that. But I digress.

However, I do not think the era of "evil and greedy corporations and special interests who seek to grind them down and suck them dry" being able to impose their influence over the masses is over or will be for a long time. Even educated people can not possibly be educated about everything, which means they can be swayed by misinformation just as much as the uneducated masses. See the vaccines cause autism "debate" for a perfect example of what misinformation can do. So in turn I don't think the era of needing leaders to shepherd us through those boogeymen is over either.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by manasecret

So in turn I don't think the era of needing leaders to shepherd us through those boogeymen is over either.

But does leadership necessitate control? When we attack corporations/banks (even when they do exactly what we ask of them) and regulate/tax/operate them, power is not being destroyed, simply moved and centralized. Once this centralization is complete, the abuse begins and principles go out the window.

We can see this now in the recent union deal exempting them from taxes levied on "cadillac" healthcare plans in the Senate bill, and also on the recent taxes proposed for banks, many of which already paid back their TARP funds, with interest, while failing TARP/bailout companies link Chrysler, GM, Fannie and Freddie are exempt from their own mistakes, with little no TARP paid back. Afterall, how can you tax yourself since the government basically owns these pseudo-private companies? This is why government cannot compete with private industry, because government sets the rules by which their competition must abide.

This is why I believe the greatest regulator in history is aggressive private competition (not monopolies). When competition is maintained, it is the individual who wins because business must concentrate on caprturing their dollar and trust, and not just growing their own power.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

This is why I believe the greatest regulator in history is aggressive private competition (not monopolies). When competition is maintained, it is the individual who wins because business must concentrate on caprturing their dollar and trust, and not just growing their own power.

Are monopolies the only place where a line should be drawn?

If a company/bank/etc grows to the point where they can destroy the country's economy if they fail.. then they need to be regulated a lot stronger imo. "Too big to fail" shouldn't exist, since it's a threat to our way of life and national security. If a company starts crossing that line, I feel that it's the government's job to protect the masses from them.

Much like a monopoly.

Though it's a very complicated situation.. The best thing to do imo is to prevent things like this from happening, because once they get too big.. it's a situation of being damned if you do something, and damned if you don't. You act on them when they're too big, and it may inspire them to take more risks knowing the government will just save them anyway.. you don't act and there's a financial meltdown. So really the only thing you can do is take steps to prevent AIGs from happening.

As for the whole politic's opinion in that article that was posted, both sides are guilty of that. This is why the Republicans lost power, and why the democrats seem to be losing it now. It's a new era.

[manasecret]

Originally Posted by Professor S

But does leadership necessitate control? When we attack corporations/banks (even when they do exactly what we ask of them) and regulate/tax/operate them, power is not being destroyed, simply moved and centralized. Once this centralization is complete, the abuse begins and principles go out the window.

We can see this now in the recent union deal exempting them from taxes levied on "cadillac" healthcare plans in the Senate bill, and also on the recent taxes proposed for banks, many of which already paid back their TARP funds, with interest, while failing TARP/bailout companies link Chrysler, GM, Fannie and Freddie are exempt from their own mistakes, with little no TARP paid back. Afterall, how can you tax yourself since the government basically owns these pseudo-private companies? This is why government cannot compete with private industry, because government sets the rules by which their competition must abide.

This is why I believe the greatest regulator in history is aggressive private competition (not monopolies). When competition is maintained, it is the individual who wins because business must concentrate on caprturing their dollar and trust, and not just growing their own power.

I feel like you're going on tangents here, which is fine, but I'm a little slow and I'm not following your main point that followed mine, which I think has something to do with the "shepherding leaders" taking too much control/power. Care to elaborate?

As for the banks, do you not think the banks that were too big to fail should be regulated so that they're not too big to fail, and regulated so that they can't take enormous risky investments that cause the whole economy to implode because of it? It seems like the overall message to the huge banks from the recession and the bailouts is that it's okay for them to make very risky investments, because the government will back them up in the end. It seems to me that message needs to change.

[Acebot44]

Originally Posted by manasecret

However, I do not think the era of "evil and greedy corporations and special interests who seek to grind them down and suck them dry" being able to impose their influence over the masses is over or will be for a long time.

Good hunch.

Check this shit out.

[The Germanator]

Originally Posted by Acebot44

Good hunch.

Check this shit out.

I couldn't believe the Supreme Court did this. This is the most disturbing news out of politics I've experienced in a while. It just doesn't seem right.