Conquer Club, a free online multiplayer variation of a popular world domination board game.
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/
By this measure, sir.PLAYER57832 wrote:Mr_Adams wrote:The US federal government is FAR to large.
Too large by what measure? Is it really too large or just ineffective?
Who said anything about enemies? It isn't possible for a corporation to grow to the size these groups have with out the help of the government. they grow hand-in-hand. Can you think of one instance wherein a mass corporation has grown without the help of the government? It simply isn't possible.PLAYER57832 wrote: OR, is it that companies have gotten upset that government is sometimes effective, sometimes DOES operate to protect people over the interests of profit and therefore has decided to go on an all out long-standing campaign to convince people that the government, not they are "the enemy"
Nope, sorry. Cute rhetoric, but not an answer. (and not true, anyway.. there is nothing about the exact size of government within the constitution)Mr_Adams wrote:By this measure, sir.PLAYER57832 wrote:Mr_Adams wrote:The US federal government is FAR to large.
Too large by what measure? Is it really too large or just ineffective?
Well,l when you say, as you have that the government is acting against the people, etc, that is what you are saying. I just used fewer words for simplicity.Mr_Adams wrote:Who said anything about enemies?PLAYER57832 wrote: OR, is it that companies have gotten upset that government is sometimes effective, sometimes DOES operate to protect people over the interests of profit and therefore has decided to go on an all out long-standing campaign to convince people that the government, not they are "the enemy"
Actually, most of the corporations at the turn of the century grew without the help of the government. However, they abused their power and so government began taking more steps to limit them.Mr_Adams wrote: It isn't possible for a corporation to grow to the size these groups have with out the help of the government. they grow hand-in-hand. Can you think of one instance wherein a mass corporation has grown without the help of the government? It simply isn't possible.
Government spending has increased from $1.9 trillion in 2001 to $3.4 trillion in 2011 (those numbers are rough b/c I can't quickly find the real numbers). I'd say that's quite a good indication the government is too big.PLAYER57832 wrote:Nope, sorry. Cute rhetoric, but not an answer. (and not true, anyway.. there is nothing about the exact size of government within the constitution)Mr_Adams wrote:By this measure, sir.PLAYER57832 wrote:Mr_Adams wrote:The US federal government is FAR to large.
Too large by what measure? Is it really too large or just ineffective?
Try again, with something specific
I see, and where do those numbers appear in the Constitution? Or any reference to such?Night Strike wrote:Government spending has increased from $1.9 trillion in 2001 to $3.4 trillion in 2011 (those numbers are rough b/c I can't quickly find the real numbers). I'd say that's quite a good indication the government is too big.PLAYER57832 wrote:Try again, with something specific
Powers of the federal government, as prescribed by article 1 section 8 of the US constitutionPLAYER57832 wrote:Nope, sorry. Cute rhetoric, but not an answer. (and not true, anyway.. there is nothing about the exact size of government within the constitution)Mr_Adams wrote:By this measure, sir.PLAYER57832 wrote:Mr_Adams wrote:The US federal government is FAR to large.
Too large by what measure? Is it really too large or just ineffective?
Try again, with something specific
US Constitution wrote:1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
And I'm telling you the current US federal government, and the federal government beginning in the first half of the 20th century, is too big and too detached. I'm for limited government here, now, in the United States.natty_dread wrote:Sure. What I'm saying is that a government is not inherently external to the people. It can be if it's too detached from the needs of the people. But that's a whole another issue, and it's not an inherent flaw in the concept of government itself.thegreekdog wrote:Really? I have argued and will continue to argue (and you have argued) that the government of the United States is external to the people. It does not do what the people want; it does what the big corporations and special interest groups want.
Society, people, other businesses would ensure that businesses don't do immoral things. WalMart treats its workers like shit, I don't shop at WalMart (true story by the way).natty_dread wrote:[Ok. So who would make sure that businesses don't do immoral things, then?thegreekdog wrote:No, I mean making sure New York doesn't kill trade with New Jersey... trade among the states, not trade in the states. That's what the commerce clause is there for.
Please don't say "market forces".
I suspect not, although I'm not entirely sure. If we look at state or local governments, we can find examples. Pennsylvania provides a nice sales tax exemption for mining companies. However, there is much uproar about this (without getting into details, companies are going to come in to Pennsylvania and mine the shit out of this shale, causing all sorts of potentially lethal environmental crap). In any event, the people of Pennsylvania know, specifically, what is going on and who is influencing legislation. That is useful information to have and easier information to get than information about who influences federal politics.natty_dread wrote:It might not be a bad idea. I'm not sure. On one hand, it would be nice to have a stop to all the imperialism, like you said. On the other hand... I'm a bit worried, that it could make things worse - if corporations are able to influence the current US government, wouldn't it be easier for them to influence a smaller government of a smaller republic?thegreekdog wrote:Correct. I support the idea that the United States should be split into smaller, regional republics with a common "federal" government that merely exists to ensure fair trade amongst the republics and to provide for the common defense, if needed. I also think this would stop the United States imperialism. Statists on both the Republican and Demoract side don't want this (it's called secession), so they call secessionists racists because the last time there was considerable secession talk it was over the issue of slavery. Anyway, I digress.
Numbers 1 and 2 appear to be flaws in big governments themselves (at least in my limited experience with world history).natty_dread wrote:I can't argue with #1... #2 may be so, but is it necessarily a flaw in a big government itself? Couldn't corporations have too much influence on smaller governments just as well?thegreekdog wrote:There are many. Here are some more important ones:
(1) Foreign wars and general imperialism
(2) Corporations, special interest groups, and unions have a disproportionate influence on the members of federal government.
(3) Education
(4) Taxation
(5) Over-regulation and under-regulation
(6) Inflation
#3: How would a smaller government improve education?
#4: I don't really know how your taxes work, but I've heard you complain many times that you don't want to be taxed the same way really rich people get taxed... is this also caused by large government? Why can't a large government implement more progressive taxes?
#5: Both are certainly legitimate problems
#6: not sure about this one either... can you elaborate?
Yes, but arguably big corporations have to give money to more people. And unions have as much money as big companies and don't have to pay anyone or make anything (i.e. they aren't spending their income on anything except campaigns).natty_dread wrote:Of course not, but big corporations have more money than small ones, right? And the one with more money gets to speak first...thegreekdog wrote:Big corporations are not the only ones with the money to slip in the pockets of politicians. I removed the word "corrupt" because it is not illegal for entities to bribe, I mean pay for the campaigns of, politicians.
I happen to keep in contact with several of my teachers from high school, and the general consensus is that the involvement of the federal government in the public education is harmful. They have to meet federal "standards", which are completely arbitrary, and get in the way of the general education of the students.thegreekdog wrote: #3 - I'm not saying smaller government improves education; I'm saying bigger government made education worse.
Yes. Taxes are a necessary thing, if any government is ever going to do anything at all.Mr_Adams wrote:Alright, your whole argument here, all of you on the pro-health care side, are working under the assumption that it is right that, for the good of the people, it is right that the rights/property of one person be sacrificed, am I right?
I can't speak for anyone else. My view on the situation is that I do tend to believe we would be better off as a nation in the long-run if we had real preventative health care available to everyone. I don't have any facts or documentation to back that up. It just seems to me that by getting that preventative health care, we avoid a lot of the costs associated with emergency room and urgent care visits where a particular health situation has been exacerbated significantly beyond what probably could have been handled earlier. As is probably obvious, my only Constitutional backing for it would be the General Welfare Clause, and I can't say for certain (my lacking of facts/documentation) that it would necessarily apply.Mr_Adams wrote:Alright, your whole argument here, all of you on the pro-health care side, are working under the assumption that it is right that, for the good of the people, it is right that the rights/property of one person be sacrificed, am I right?
This surprises me, coming from you. I don't at all understand why you believe that unions have as much money as big companies. That almost can't be true, in fact. What you say regarding their expenditures is mostly true (the top union bosses have allowances of a sort...I know relevant trips can be financed anyway), but they don't need to purchase resources to make a product.thegreekdog wrote:Yes, but arguably big corporations have to give money to more people. And unions have as much money as big companies and don't have to pay anyone or make anything (i.e. they aren't spending their income on anything except campaigns).
Timminz wrote:Yes. Taxes are a necessary thing, if any government is ever going to do anything at all.Mr_Adams wrote:Alright, your whole argument here, all of you on the pro-health care side, are working under the assumption that it is right that, for the good of the people, it is right that the rights/property of one person be sacrificed, am I right?
Are you suggesting the total abolition of government?
Woodruff wrote:I can't speak for anyone else. My view on the situation is that I do tend to believe we would be better off as a nation in the long-run if we had real preventative health care available to everyone. I don't have any facts or documentation to back that up. It just seems to me that by getting that preventative health care, we avoid a lot of the costs associated with emergency room and urgent care visits where a particular health situation has been exacerbated significantly beyond what probably could have been handled earlier. As is probably obvious, my only Constitutional backing for it would be the General Welfare Clause, and I can't say for certain (my lacking of facts/documentation) that it would necessarily apply.Mr_Adams wrote:Alright, your whole argument here, all of you on the pro-health care side, are working under the assumption that it is right that, for the good of the people, it is right that the rights/property of one person be sacrificed, am I right?
I tend to agree. In particular, the No Child Left Behind Act, which was a great ideal very poorly implemented, has harmed education in my opinion. Making the standard relate to test scores is a serious problem, as it leads the poorer/lazier teachers to "teach to the test". Unfortunately, that means their students are probably going to actually make them look better than the better teachers who aren't doing that, as they shouldn't be. The big problem as I see it, though, is if not testing...then how do you define the standard? As much as I dislike testing as the standard, I don't see a good alternative.Mr_Adams wrote:I happen to keep in contact with several of my teachers from high school, and the general consensus is that the involvement of the federal government in the public education is harmful.thegreekdog wrote: #3 - I'm not saying smaller government improves education; I'm saying bigger government made education worse.
It really makes sense to me, simply from a "the local community should be deciding this" perspective. Then again, the states are almost guaranteed to fill the void if the federal government steps out of it, and I'm not sure that will be a lot better (Kansas, I'm looking at you).Mr_Adams wrote:Also, thee is no allotment for a federally funded school system. Those decisions, by declaration under the tenth amendment, should be left to the state and local governments.
PREVENTATIVE health care is already available and out there for use? That's not how I understand it.Mr_Adams wrote:Woodruff wrote:I can't speak for anyone else. My view on the situation is that I do tend to believe we would be better off as a nation in the long-run if we had real preventative health care available to everyone. I don't have any facts or documentation to back that up. It just seems to me that by getting that preventative health care, we avoid a lot of the costs associated with emergency room and urgent care visits where a particular health situation has been exacerbated significantly beyond what probably could have been handled earlier. As is probably obvious, my only Constitutional backing for it would be the General Welfare Clause, and I can't say for certain (my lacking of facts/documentation) that it would necessarily apply.Mr_Adams wrote:Alright, your whole argument here, all of you on the pro-health care side, are working under the assumption that it is right that, for the good of the people, it is right that the rights/property of one person be sacrificed, am I right?
See, that's the beauty of it, that it is already available and out there for use.
Could it possibly be worse? State government have an excellent record stepping up where the federal government has failed.Woodruff wrote:It really makes sense to me, simply from a "the local community should be deciding this" perspective. Then again, the states are almost guaranteed to fill the void if the federal government steps out of it, and I'm not sure that will be a lot better (Kansas, I'm looking at you).Mr_Adams wrote:Also, thee is no allotment for a federally funded school system. Those decisions, by declaration under the tenth amendment, should be left to the state and local governments.
I get that you're saying that. No need for repetition. However, you do concede the point that a government is not necessarily inherently external to the people it governs?thegreekdog wrote: And I'm telling you the current US federal government, and the federal government beginning in the first half of the 20th century, is too big and too detached. I'm for limited government here, now, in the United States.
In other words... market forces?thegreekdog wrote:Society, people, other businesses would ensure that businesses don't do immoral things. WalMart treats its workers like shit, I don't shop at WalMart (true story by the way).Ok. So who would make sure that businesses don't do immoral things, then?
Please don't say "market forces".
That's a good point there. However, one advantage with a federal government regulating things is that it can ensure that the same regulations apply everywhere. So a business can't just move it's business to another state/country to bypass regulations. With multiple small countries/states, it only takes one with looser regulations, and businesses will flock there, and undermine the efforts of the others.thegreekdog wrote:I suspect not, although I'm not entirely sure. If we look at state or local governments, we can find examples. Pennsylvania provides a nice sales tax exemption for mining companies. However, there is much uproar about this (without getting into details, companies are going to come in to Pennsylvania and mine the shit out of this shale, causing all sorts of potentially lethal environmental crap). In any event, the people of Pennsylvania know, specifically, what is going on and who is influencing legislation. That is useful information to have and easier information to get than information about who influences federal politics.natty_dread wrote:It might not be a bad idea. I'm not sure. On one hand, it would be nice to have a stop to all the imperialism, like you said. On the other hand... I'm a bit worried, that it could make things worse - if corporations are able to influence the current US government, wouldn't it be easier for them to influence a smaller government of a smaller republic?
#3 - how did this happen exactly?thegreekdog wrote:Numbers 1 and 2 appear to be flaws in big governments themselves (at least in my limited experience with world history).
#3 - I'm not saying smaller government improves education; I'm saying bigger government made education worse.
#4 - Taxes are burdensome because of the size of the federal government. So, not only do the people of Walla Walla, Washington have the local government, they also have the state government, and the federal government. Let's say there are 100 people in Walla Walla, 5 Walla Wallas in Washington, and 50 Washingtons in the United States... that's a whole lot of people the federal government has on their "care for" card. Smaller governments can have more specific items for their peoples' needs as well (which means less spending on useless crap).
#6 - Some would say that inflation in the United States is caused by the printing of money by the US treasury which is needed because of mounting US debt. There is not a quorum in Congress large enough to cut spending such that inflation won't continue to increase.
I'm not exactly sure on the role of unions in USA... are they really as wealthy as big corporations? Don't they get their only income from union fees, from workers belonging in the union?thegreekdog wrote:Yes, but arguably big corporations have to give money to more people. And unions have as much money as big companies and don't have to pay anyone or make anything (i.e. they aren't spending their income on anything except campaigns).
Because it IS NOT already available not really.Mr_Adams wrote:Woodruff wrote:I can't speak for anyone else. My view on the situation is that I do tend to believe we would be better off as a nation in the long-run if we had real preventative health care available to everyone. I don't have any facts or documentation to back that up. It just seems to me that by getting that preventative health care, we avoid a lot of the costs associated with emergency room and urgent care visits where a particular health situation has been exacerbated significantly beyond what probably could have been handled earlier. As is probably obvious, my only Constitutional backing for it would be the General Welfare Clause, and I can't say for certain (my lacking of facts/documentation) that it would necessarily apply.Mr_Adams wrote:Alright, your whole argument here, all of you on the pro-health care side, are working under the assumption that it is right that, for the good of the people, it is right that the rights/property of one person be sacrificed, am I right?
See, that's the beauty of it, that it is already available and out there for use. Point is, the federal government making it MANDATORY isn't necessary.
And how is federal intervention going to help with this?PLAYER57832 wrote: And, beyond that preventative care is not truly available everywhere. We just got diabetic nutritionists here in our area 2 years ago, for example. Before that, the nearest one was a good 3 hour drive.
Any time you talk about health care, you are talking about insurance because it is the insurance industry that largely created the mess we have... and because without insurance, no one who is not independently wealthy can truly afford more than the barest of health care.Mr_Adams wrote: we aren't talking about insurance, you twit.
Universal health coverage will help far, far more people to access the basic types of care they need, across the board. That has to be federal because any other system would be too inefficient, even individual state-run plans.Mr_Adams wrote:And how is federal intervention going to help with this?PLAYER57832 wrote: And, beyond that preventative care is not truly available everywhere. We just got diabetic nutritionists here in our area 2 years ago, for example. Before that, the nearest one was a good 3 hour drive.
This is demagoguery, plain and simple. You have so thoroughly demonized the insurance companies in your own mind that everything MUST be their fault, event though the evidence is to the contrary.PLAYER57832 wrote:Any time you talk about health care, you are talking about insurance because it is the insurance industry that largely created the mess we have... and because without insurance, no one who is not independently wealthy can truly afford more than the barest of health care.Mr_Adams wrote: we aren't talking about insurance, you twit.
This still doesn't help with areas that have no doctors. What? You want to import them? That way we have areas with access to one shit doctor, employed by the government?PLAYER57832 wrote:Universal health coverage will. That has to be federal because any other system would be too inefficient, even individual state-run plans.Mr_Adams wrote:And how is federal intervention going to help with this?PLAYER57832 wrote: And, beyond that preventative care is not truly available everywhere. We just got diabetic nutritionists here in our area 2 years ago, for example. Before that, the nearest one was a good 3 hour drive.