DescentBB

Posted: **Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:02 pm**

an essay by Lowry and Ponnuru -
An Exceptional Debate

and some NRO commentary

Why?

Because it is good to remember.

Posted: **Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:31 pm**

Our government is too cozy with big business and it will be the downfall of America. What powers the government lacks, huge corporations wield in the pretense of \"free industry\" and they work together to trample us. America is no longer about freedom and liberty, it is now about profit and entitlement.

Posted: **Thu Mar 04, 2010 11:56 pm**

There will always be these risks, where elites (whether of a business, political or other nature) attempt to align themselves with government (and hence, with \"power\") to try to co-opt the ideal of individual liberty. If American citizens choose to give up their freedoms, then you could be right.

edit - compare classical liberalism with modern liberalism.
See http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Classical_Libe ... vatism.pdf
(from here)

Posted: **Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:00 pm**

dissent wrote:There will always be these risks, where elites (whether of a business, political or other nature) attempt to align themselves with government (and hence, with "power") to try to co-opt the ideal of individual liberty. If American citizens choose to give up their freedoms, then you could be right.

...

True the attempt to gain power and influence over government by those with the means to take it is inevitable but I think we have already given up big chunks of our freedom by not demanding our representatives in government kill the attempt and maintain the built in constitutional protections we citizens have from those elitists efforts and work to create additional protection to cope with the changes that come our way including protection from the Party machine which is just as powerful and dangerous as any corporate machine.
Instead we vote for which Party we think will sell us out in a more acceptable fashion.

We went from being free agents to a system that mandates choosing a pimp and our so called 'free elections' are reduced to fighting over who has chosen the better pimp....

Posted: **Fri Mar 05, 2010 4:01 pm**

Posted: **Fri Mar 05, 2010 4:50 pm**

If the system collapses, there won't be a GOPSCOTUS there, sugar.

Dissolve the Union. Give Montana it's sovereignty. You guys can deal with your own respective states.

Posted: **Fri Mar 05, 2010 4:52 pm**

Will Robinson wrote:We went from being free agents to a system that mandates choosing a pimp and our so called 'free elections' are reduced to fighting over who has chosen the better pimp....

And then...

Bet51987 wrote:And then of course the Supreme Court of the United States (now called the GOPSCOTUS) gave big business a much bigger part in the election process.

Bee

Sticking up for your pimp by putting the other one down eh?

Posted: **Fri Mar 05, 2010 5:05 pm**

Will Robinson wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:We went from being free agents to a system that mandates choosing a pimp and our so called 'free elections' are reduced to fighting over who has chosen the better pimp....
And then...

Bet51987 wrote:And then of course the Supreme Court of the United States (now called the GOPSCOTUS) gave big business a much bigger part in the election process.

Bee

Sticking up for your pimp by putting the other one down eh?

Posted: **Sat Mar 06, 2010 9:17 am**

SilverFJ wrote:Dissolve the Union. Give Montana it's sovereignty.

I thought one of the good aspects of the way this union was supposed to work is that Montana maintains a large degree of sovereignty. I don't think dissolving the union is a good idea. I say kick the federal government back into its constitutional pen--cutting all of the strings, and confronting all of the intrusions--and go from there. If conservatism doesn't have enough of a foot-hold in your local government to accomplish that, I don't know how complete independence could be gained outside of a very bloody conflict.

Posted: **Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:43 pm**

I heard a few good ideas from Neil Boortz, one of the FairTax proponents who also does a talk radio show, he's a Libertarian for the most part although he rejects some of their platform on the grounds of common sense.
He's a bright guy who thinks outside the box and I think he's got the right idea to neuter the Fed.

*Repeal whatever amendment was passed to make our U.S. Senators an elected position and go back to making them appointed by the State legislature.

*Eliminate the Electoral College and the election of President by popular vote and make the house of representatives vote for the President.

So under that scenario the highest official you vote for is your State government and your districts U.S. Congressmen and it is those guys, you know the ones who still fear you at the ballot box and actually are in touch with what you have to say..., those guys will decide who becomes a Senator and who becomes President. Those \"appointed\" Senators and President will not be indebted to any all powerful Party nor any campaign finance pressure. It won't be a popularity contest where slick talking empty suits get elected by playing on the idiot voters emotions it will be guys who are capable of running an operation and guys who are known to your representatives to be advocates for ideas that are in line with your representatives ideas of good government. In other words your Senators and President will be yours again.

Do that, abolish lobbiests, reform campaign donation rules and drastically reform the tax code to eliminate Congress' ability to trade tax exemptions for money and support and you will see the two big party's become a minor factor in legislation instead of dictating how members vote and each state will have a powerful influence on the legislation.

Posted: **Sat Mar 06, 2010 1:01 pm**

Thinking your state legislators fear the voters more than the federal legislators just indicates how out of touch you are with all upper levels of government...

At least in Madison Wisconsin, Big Business writes the rules just as much as it does in Washington DC.

Posted: **Sat Mar 06, 2010 1:16 pm**

Krom wrote:Thinking your state legislators fear the voters more than the federal legislators just indicates how out of touch you are with all upper levels of government...

At least in Madison Wisconsin, Big Business writes the rules just as much as it does in Washington DC.

two things
one, I think you didn't factor in the part about abolishing lobbiests combined with tax code and campaign finance law reform which will cut big businesses influence to a large degree.

two, think of it as cancer surgery, you have to remove the massive tumorous growth...doesn't mean you're cured but you need to rip the bulk of the cancer out then you can apply some chemotherapy to increase the odds for your recovery.

Also, using your example, how many congressmen come from the district containing Madison and how many congressmen in Wisconsin total? The 'Madison' poison is diluted to a percentage of Wisconsin's total impact on the national stage.
California, how many districts (congressmen) would never have selected Diane Feinstien or Barbara Boxer especially if they don't need the help of the Democrat Party to get elected? Nancy Pelosi is a big power in Washington, not because her district is special or because being Speaker is that powerful but only because she is a big cat in the Democrat Party, under this scenario her influence on other members of the house would diminish because the Party would be diminished substantially.

I think this method would reduce the number of Congressmen who rely on Party power and increase the number who rely on good policy ideas to get elected.

Posted: **Sat Mar 06, 2010 1:37 pm**

Posted: **Sat Mar 06, 2010 1:49 pm**

I could agree that the elected officals at the lower levels have more to fear from the voters, simply because of the number of voters that elect them, and these voters tend to be more informed.

That being said, I don’t believe those particular changes would do any good.

Maybe direct democracy and an IQ test needed to vote might help.

Posted: **Sat Mar 06, 2010 10:14 pm**

Spidey wrote:Maybe direct democracy and an IQ test needed to vote might help.

Nah, don't have an IQ test to vote.

Instead - we should do all do what we can to shift the IQ average upwards.

Since a country will typically get the government it deserves, the voting results will show how well our IQ raising efforts are going.

Posted: **Sat Mar 06, 2010 10:42 pm**

By what method? Selective breeding? When I refer to IQ I mean raw intelligence, not knowledge. I know a lot of stupid people who are just chock-full of knowledge, and I really wish they didn’t vote.

Posted: **Sat Mar 06, 2010 11:10 pm**

Thinking you can cause a genetic shift on a population of over 7 billion is more than a little silly.

Posted: **Sat Mar 06, 2010 11:45 pm**

Krom wrote:Thinking you can cause a genetic shift on a population of over 7 billion is more than a little silly.

We don't have to, since we're all pretty much equally stupid. Good and early training in reading, math, and history is what really makes people different.
Building a better education system should make us suddenly seem smarter, in the long run. But it wont since many high school kids don't care about the material; no matter how good you build it kids will probably treat it the same.

That's why schools should be 100% automated, where each student is trapped in a spherical bulletproof monitor that force feeds them knowledge. They won't be released until the day's required material has been mastered at a perfect score, according to the system's "end of day" testing. Parents would be able to log onto Google Education and edit the learning material and even create new customized lesson plans. This could also be used as part of our prison system. It's a win win.

Posted: **Sun Mar 07, 2010 12:54 am**

Isaac wrote:We don't have to, since we're all pretty much equally stupid.

highly debatable. some people are clearly stupider than others.

That's why schools should be 100% automated, where each student is trapped in a spherical bulletproof monitor that force feeds them knowledge. They won't be released until the day's required material has been mastered at a perfect score, according to the system's "end of day" testing. Parents would be able to log onto Google Education and edit the learning material and even create new customized lesson plans. This could also be used as part of our prison system. It's a win win.

good luck with the teacher's unions and the civil libertarians on this one (among dozens of other likely considerations). You really want to make Google also the Dept. of Education?

Posted: **Sun Mar 07, 2010 2:36 am**

Spidey wrote:By what method? Selective breeding? When I refer to IQ I mean raw intelligence, not knowledge. I know a lot of stupid people who are just chock-full of knowledge, and I really wish they didn’t vote.

Selective breeding? No.

- Increase the quality and availability of education in society, the internet seems good for this. And dare i say computer games are doing their part (Where on earth did i learn howto say "grenade!" "hurry up" and "soldier spotted" in Russian?!)
- Use technology to better your own education and understanding of things around you, and pass this onto those around you.
- Always do your part to encourage greater education in the general populace whenever possible. Even if only by example - so make sure you're still engaging with people.
- Do all you can to encourage general knowledge in those around you of physical and mental conditions that needlessly lower intelligence. There are a lot of conditions that lower the intelligence of people, many of them can be minimised if diagnosed early and even reversed with appropriate therapy and/or drugs. It can be said that a healthy population is also an intelligent and highly productive population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect things are looking up.

Posted: **Sun Mar 07, 2010 6:59 am**

dissent wrote:
Isaac wrote:We don't have to, since we're all pretty much equally stupid.
highly debatable. some people are clearly stupider than others.

That's why I wrote "Pretty much".

Posted: **Sun Mar 07, 2010 2:56 pm**

Isaac wrote:That's why I wrote "Pretty much".

Not to belabor the point too much; what you wrote was "... pretty much equally ...". To me this reads as thinking that most people are (by nature) stupid AND that the statistical distribution is narrow. The only difference is access to good education.

My point is that the intelligence distribution is quite broad. Some people will benefit greatly from either a lot or a little good education. Some people will be impenetrable to even the best efforts of very good educators.

Posted: **Sun Mar 07, 2010 3:09 pm**

dissent wrote:Some people will be impenetrable to even the best efforts of very good educators.

I have a real problem with statements like that. You just brush over any responsibility in the matter that belongs to the individuals themselves or their parents, and say they will just be that way. Some people may be brighter than others, but no one is really stupid or ignorant without the influence of upbringing, lack of application/laziness, or poor character, etc. That's just way too easy.

Posted: **Sun Mar 07, 2010 3:21 pm**

Well, \"stupid\" is relative. People are stupid = true.

The human brain is essentially a pattern finding machine; it constantly re-checks patterns against different parts of the brain. Depending on how well a brain does determines how smart a person is. The brain can learn how to do this better through practice. Even people with major mental defects can work on how their brain uses its patterns.

Better education will make people seem smarter. You either use your potential or you don't, assuming you don't have a major defect.

Posted: **Mon Mar 08, 2010 7:36 am**

The real problem here is time. After you work all day, do the house and yard work and do a little relaxing, how much time is left for the average person to go out and research every political item that comes along or to research what a candidate really is about? This lack of time is perhaps why people will let the Glen Becks and Michael Moore's of the world do their thinking for them when it comes to politics.

Posted: **Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:21 am**

x2!!!

Posted: **Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:07 am**

resurrecting my thread for some updated reference information.

occasioned by reading the following post by Ed Morrissey on leftist protesters at the SRLC.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/10/n ... lc-fringe/
See Ed's essay here on \"Rights and Wrongs\"

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liber ... -negative/
some backgrounder info on the idea of \"negative liberty\" v. \"positive liberty\"

Because the concept of negative freedom concentrates on the external sphere in which individuals interact, it seems to provide a better guarantee against the dangers of paternalism and authoritarianism perceived by Berlin. To promote negative freedom is to promote the existence of a sphere of action within which the individual is sovereign, and within which she can pursue her own projects subject only to the constraint that she respect the spheres of others. Humboldt and Mill, both defenders of the negative concept of freedom, compared the development of an individual to that of a plant: individuals, like plants, must be allowed to grow, in the sense of developing their own faculties to the full and according to their own inner logic. Personal growth is something that cannot be imposed from without, but must come from within the individual.

hence the idea of the American founding, the \"American experiment\", where the idea is to limit government and allow the individual to operate with freedom within that environment, as opposed to the idea of having government intrude and \"define\" the freedoms of the individual.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/
more backgrounder info on negative and positive liberty, and on the transition of \"liberalism\" from the classical to the New Liberalism.

Posted: **Sun Apr 11, 2010 12:37 pm**

woodchip wrote:The real problem here is time. After you work all day, do the house and yard work and do a little relaxing, how much time is left for the average person to go out and research every political item that comes along or to research what a candidate really is about? This lack of time is perhaps why people will let the Glen Becks and Michael Moore's of the world do their thinking for them when it comes to politics.

Glenn Beck isn't only an opinion starter. The first day I ever watched his show I was in awe that finally someone in the mass media was saying the things I've been thinking myself. He and I might be extremists by nature, but that represents a rather large constituant in our country as well.

Now a true idiot is Bill Maher.(sp?) "Religulous" was probably the most assanine thing I've ever seen half of and had to turn off.

Posted: **Sun Apr 11, 2010 3:12 pm**

*SilverFJ wrote: Glenn Beck isn't only an opinion starter. The first day I ever watched his show I was in awe that finally someone in the mass media was saying the things I've been thinking myself. He and I might be extremists by nature, but that represents a rather large constituant in our country as well.

Now a true idiot is Bill Maher.(sp?) "Religulous" was probably the most assanine thing I've ever seen half of and had to turn off.

I never saw Religulous, but I would put him in the camp of Glenn Beck based on clips of his show that I have seen on youtube. Both of these folks make a living trying to deceive people and create false enemies rather then engage in honest debate. I don't understand how anyone can stand to watch either one of them.

Posted: **Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:48 pm**

more good related reading -

the following article by Jacob Hornberger
Liberal Delusions about Freedom
(some interesting historical background here)

elicited the following response at Reason from David Boaz,
http://reason.com/archives/2010/04/06/up-from-slavery

to which Hornberger has responded here -
http://reason.com/archives/2010/04/09/up-from-serfdom

DescentBB

American Exceptionalism

American Exceptionalism

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: