Originally posted by Zampanó
Actually my (one, introductory) polisci class pointed out that the current economy of influence on Capital Hill is not an intentional part of the system. That is, the distortion of incentives leading to corruption and preventing bipartisan collaboration is a flaw of the way we select people as representatives, not a flaw in the government system itself. So there is some distinction that can be made between governors and government. (The problem was gerrymandering, I think. But your points are well made.)
If you wind up carrying on in your education of political science (and I'd recommend taking a few more classes, it'll supplement 2 of your 3 majors and I think you'll find them personally enriching and rewarding), you'll come to understand that while the system itself (as written, anyway) does not promote the presence and spread of corruption and intractability, the fact that the system allows such things to foment is a weakness of it. Because ultimately, in a democratic-republic, the system is people.
As far as your age-old ideological clash with Beefy goes, I think it's great. In my opinion, his sort of ruthless questioning helps to minimize unnecessary government abuse whereas your romantic endorsement helps emphasize necessary government support.
I freely admit that some subtlety went out the window in my rush to contradict him. But I hardly think that our positions are equally extreme, let alone equally naive. The libertarian republican stance axiomatically excludes one of the most powerful tools a society has to effect change (specifically: government). The opposite wing of the spectrum is eager to utilize that tool but rarely do we forget that it is a double edged sword. Use with caution is hardly the polar opposite of total abstinence.
As far as your age-old ideological clash with Beefy goes, I think it's great. In my opinion, his sort of ruthless questioning helps to minimize unnecessary government abuse whereas your romantic endorsement helps emphasize necessary government support.
Originally posted by The_Tempest
I think the government has a marginal role in economics if only to enforce transactions and obligations between private parties.
Yup. Otherwise, a contract is no longer a contract if there isn't anyone there to enforce it. They exist to serve the public, hence public service. That involves crimes as well.
I stress this read again:
http://thricenight.blogspot.com/2011/03/modern-conservatism-classical.html
Originally posted by look at my junk"There are many bad things about both socialistic and classical liberalism, as it is described above--for instance, it tries to promote individual freedom against tradition, community, and church."
I stress this read again:
http://thricenight.blogspot.com/2011/03/modern-conservatism-classical.html
I can't say I agree with that train of thought.
Though I like the article. Any discussion that involves the words "morally neutral" piques my interest.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Rich people are assholes.
There is a reason why there rich, its because they worked harder then those that are poor.
Most of the time.
Haters gona hate 😂
For example My grandpa came from a poor ass family. They werint from america and they had no money nothing they were dead poor. NO ONE in his family went to college.
Then my Grandpa decided to get up and do something with his life. He moved up in the corporate latter for nuclear management and then soon became rich. Ended up making 400K(per year) and my family is DAMN rich because of that. Currently live in a large gated community.
So yeah, my family started out poor and is now damn well off. Thats capitalism. Thats the american dream.
The government does NOT build success.
ITS PEOPLE and FREE MARKETS that build our future NOT GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION!.
Its capitalism which builds us. Thank god for capitalism and the american dream.
@Look at my junk is right on everypoint he's mad here. 100% right.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Maybe they're mostly drunk and cheaters because they're poor as **** and constantly being shat on by those richer than them.
No. The reason why there poor is because they refused to take personal responsibility.
Not ALL poor people like 55%.
I work in a area with poor people and I can vouch thats its true.
And yeah their are alot of rich assholes who didint earn there money(Donald Trump) but most are good people who put sweat, blood, and tears into their life to become rich.
Don't buy into what the media says.