Why are Republicans not in open rebellion?

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I think your post is an example of what I mean. We both think government can do some good things. To you, they are good at protection (libertarian?). To me, they are good at more (democrat). To others, they are good at everything (true socialists). To some, they are good at nothing (anarchists).

I would imagine you would agree that the government should be involved in more than just protection, though, if you thought about it. Should they be involved in air traffic control? It isn't protection, though it may be an appendage of it. What about regulating the frequencies of broadcasts? Do you think private parties could ever actually come up with a system that would ensure you wouldn't have overlap on broadcast frequencies? How could they ever stop some third party from infringing on their paid-for airwaves? Would you be annoyed to be watching ESPN only to have a local broadcaster take over the frequency?

What about freeway systems? Traffic control (an appendage of protection, but not nearly as direct as police and fire or military as you give in your example). What about regulation of the markets? Would you actually move to a totally free market? Working in securities litigation now, I can only imagine what people would try to get away with if there were actually no restrictions on what they could or could not do.

What about recording property? Public universities? National parks? Grants to students? What about regulating piracy? Copyrights in general?

People frequently advocate a truly free economy. Our economy couldn't function in a truly free sense. The government protects certain economic rights, and it regulates others. You can argue to what extent they should be involved in regulation, but I doubt if you truly thought about it you would conclude they should be involved in ZERO economic regulation. Think about bankruptcy- it is nothing more than government welfare. And yet, it encourages economic growth by allowing people to take risks they otherwise wouldn't take. Would you start a business if you knew you would go to debtor's prison for failing (knowing about 90% of start-up businesses DO fail)?

Could private parties even begin to address the slavery issue (assuming we had adopted your model going back in time)? How? Wouldn't we have slavery today in the south? What about racial segregation? Should discrimination simply be a matter of freedom of contract?

You give serveral good examples of government duties that I overlooked in my haste reply and several with which I disagree, but I won't get into that because it's an endless debate that could, if misunderstood by either party, could result in the true start of WWIII.

Quite honestly, I would approve of whichever type of government that allows me to keep the most of my earnings. The fact of the matter is that the more government control there is, the less money in my pocket.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Oh how I enjoy these grown-up exchanges. So meaningful. So well-thought out. So wrought with guidance and instruction.

Exactly...one of these days your blatant dishonesty and fakery will be something you can look back on and be ashamed of.

Just like the party you idolize and the church you criticize.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Exactly...one of these days your blatant dishonesty and fakery will be something you can look back on and be ashamed of.

Just like the party you idolize and the church you criticize.

What can I say? I am an evil SOB.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

You give serveral good examples of government duties that I overlooked in my haste reply and several with which I disagree, but I won't get into that because it's an endless debate that could, if misunderstood by either party, could result in the true start of WWIII.

Quite honestly, I would approve of whichever type of government that allows me to keep the most of my earnings. The fact of the matter is that the more government control there is, the less money in my pocket.

But rarely do we look at the hierarchy.

Society is larger than government, which is an appendage to society. It is parasitical in nature.

The important large societies must produce so that people can thrive. Government doesn't really "solve" problems, but, if applied limitedly, it can enable people to arrive at arrangements that make for liveable situations.

Government is an appendage to society, sometimes enabling, sometimes disabling.

However, by virtue of the lack of common ethos now in our country we will continue to see a lack of consensus, and a greater Balkanization of our country along cultural, regional or other divisive associations.

During the great civilization, there were common interests and goals, at least in theory, and the leaders of those civilizations sought to homogenize along those lines.

Pluralism is both measure of success and failure. It shows a society has become large, but if one ignores the lack societization with the society of new immigrants, then that society's cohesiveness will eventually fail.

Rome, Seattle can comment upon more than I ever will, was great and Romanized its citizens.

Greece to a lesser extent, as did Egypt.

In modern times, Britain, anglisized its colonies to both exploit them and to convert them, so that they became an asset.

China has fifty-two ethnic groups, but China's government "hanizes" its peoples as the other groups are mere sideshows. It is ruthless, and the ethnic groups, are poor and oppressed, but China currently faces few problems from a lack of homogeneity. Japan's and Korea's success may also follow from that.

Now I don't there must be racial purity, but rather cultural purity of identifying with the dominant culture within a society for that society to be successful.

The US no longer americanizes its citizens, we no longer share a common vision. It doesn't mean anything to be an American any more. It just means one resided and acquired residency or domicile within our borders. We are fragmented without purpose. And the younger generation cannot even fathom what it was like when Americans fought for common purpose, with a common vision, even if that vision were naive.

France francophizes its citizens despite acquiring multi-culturalism.

This is rambling, but it just seems the American Left, of which hoya is part, and the American Right, have lost sight of the larger scope of society, and have now bogged down in the minutae. Hoya has cited numerous minutae, but has lost sight how they fit into the bigger picture of cultures and societies. And the big problem for the American Left is its vision is purely parasitic. The programs it feeds don't produce anything. They are a parasite on the larger portion of society. The American Right, in theoretical terms, has not followed through in practical terms, because in terms of governance, parasitical government is always more "popular" with the masses. And so both bog down, because neither has the vision in perspective. And then the multi-culturalism will bog down our society even further.

All great societies have followed these patterns and it's only a quesiton of how long they last. Hoya's solutions are not solutions at all, but part of the problem.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

What can I say? I am an evil SOB.

Among other things..

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Among other things..

Rocky, I hope the two of you are joking because your exchanges have not been your best.

Most of us have changed by not resorting to name-calling. You don't agree with hoya, neither do I, but I thought we made a resolution to try to civilize it.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Rocky, I hope the two of you are joking because your exchanges have not been your best.

Most of us have changed by not resorting to name-calling. You don't agree with hoya, neither do I, but I thought we made a resolution to try to civilize it.

I call it how I see it. He is what he is and I make no apologies for telling the truth.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

I call it how I see it. He is what he is and I make no apologies for telling the truth.

The funny thing is, I actually know you and even helped you get a job once behind the scenes.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

The funny thing is, I actually know you and even helped you get a job once behind the scenes.

You did? I've never met you in my life.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

But rarely do we look at the hierarchy.

Society is larger than government, which is an appendage to society. It is parasitical in nature.

The important large societies must produce so that people can thrive. Government doesn't really "solve" problems, but, if applied limitedly, it can enable people to arrive at arrangements that make for liveable situations.

Government is an appendage to society, sometimes enabling, sometimes disabling.

However, by virtue of the lack of common ethos now in our country we will continue to see a lack of consensus, and a greater Balkanization of our country along cultural, regional or other divisive associations.

During the great civilization, there were common interests and goals, at least in theory, and the leaders of those civilizations sought to homogenize along those lines.

Pluralism is both measure of success and failure. It shows a society has become large, but if one ignores the lack societization with the society of new immigrants, then that society's cohesiveness will eventually fail.

Rome, Seattle can comment upon more than I ever will, was great and Romanized its citizens.

Greece to a lesser extent, as did Egypt.

In modern times, Britain, anglisized its colonies to both exploit them and to convert them, so that they became an asset.

China has fifty-two ethnic groups, but China's government "hanizes" its peoples as the other groups are mere sideshows. It is ruthless, and the ethnic groups, are poor and oppressed, but China currently faces few problems from a lack of homogeneity. Japan's and Korea's success may also follow from that.

Now I don't there must be racial purity, but rather cultural purity of identifying with the dominant culture within a society for that society to be successful.

The US no longer americanizes its citizens, we no longer share a common vision. It doesn't mean anything to be an American any more. It just means one resided and acquired residency or domicile within our borders. We are fragmented without purpose. And the younger generation cannot even fathom what it was like when Americans fought for common purpose, with a common vision, even if that vision were naive.

France francophizes its citizens despite acquiring multi-culturalism.

This is rambling, but it just seems the American Left, of which hoya is part, and the American Right, have lost sight of the larger scope of society, and have now bogged down in the minutae. Hoya has cited numerous minutae, but has lost sight how they fit into the bigger picture of cultures and societies. And the big problem for the American Left is its vision is purely parasitic. The programs it feeds don't produce anything. They are a parasite on the larger portion of society. The American Right, in theoretical terms, has not followed through in practical terms, because in terms of governance, parasitical government is always more "popular" with the masses. And so both bog down, because neither has the vision in perspective. And then the multi-culturalism will bog down our society even further.

All great societies have followed these patterns and it's only a quesiton of how long they last. Hoya's solutions are not solutions at all, but part of the problem.

You are talking about two different things but blending them all together in your analysis.

1. Most of your post relates to "Americanizing" those who come to America. I don't disagree it is important. In fact, I have posted the same thing several times. See below for an example.

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=1837527

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...85&postcount=5

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=1837384

2. You claim the government is a parasite. This is illogical, given you also claim it gives us "enabling constraints." Parasites don't enable (other than to help us poop more freely). Government is a framework within which we all operate. Acting within that framework, paradoxically, is frequently liberating (much as obeying the word of wisdom, for example is liberating even though it removes the option of partaking of certain substances- you have called this an "enabling constraint"). This has nothing to do with your point in #1 above, however. An individual's opinion on #1 does not necessarily reflect, nor does it necessarily affect, an individual's opinion on #2.

In short, I'm not sure what you are trying to assert here.