HOME | DD
Conservatoons — If the Answer is Government...
Published: 2009-11-09 03:51:36 +0000 UTC; Views: 1950; Favourites: 42; Downloads: 47
Redirect to original
Description
Liberals loathe the evil, profitable corporations who must answer to government. Yet they fawn over the largest (non-profit, of course) corporation of all, government - which answers to no one.Related content
Comments: 69
Conservatives think we need small government, even though they're in favor of: Reducing of Gay Rights, Segregation, Sexism, Ban on Pornography, Abortion, Christian Theocracy, Giving Healthcare to only the Rich, War Corporatism, Torture, Not helping victims of Rape in any way shape or form, Racist Laws, Slaughtering of those of Victimless Crimes and Opposing Ideologies, and Censorship.
Yeah, that's not Big Government at all.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Conservatives: All Insults, No Argument.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
now if we can just get 300 million other Americans to agree.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Sounds about right...Leftists revering government because it is its own boss, uber alles (over all) and thus they get the admin to pawn literally ALL others.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Quick! Do you like the fact that you can sue over a faulty product? If so then you like bigger government.
Free-market capitalism could not exist without an active government that provides the extensive legal infrastructure that creates and regulates markets and that enables corporations to do business.
Most government programs – such as fire protection, building roads, food stamps, public education, funding scientific research, and Social Security – are very important actually.
Government institutions, like the courts, are the primary way we protect our rights and liberties. Government has also been the main way to expand our rights and freedoms.
and I don't feel like typing anymore
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Well, government in itself is a lot like any given weapon: it can be used for Good, OR for Evil...it just depends on who's wielding it. Good HAS come out of it as you've proven, but so much bad has also been erected from government that you simply can't IGNORE the negative side either. I'm all for liberty, notably when it means bashing government, but if there's one thing I can't stand, it's a one-sided argument, so I actually thank you for keeping balance on the debate over government by bringing the other side into perspective.
Nextly, what have they done RECENTLY that was grand and POSITIVELY world-shifting? All I can recall is nothing more than lobbying, wild trillion-dollar "bailouts" which from my understanding will eventually fight debt with MORE debt, goofy acronyms for laws and rules and agencies that are supposed to hinder or suppress of developing businesses, health care and Internet usage amongst other topics (some more controversial than others) as soon as enforcably possible (which, knowing that the wheels turn slowly, might not be noticable for a while), invade privacy (by making international "Treaties," they are able to overrule the Constitution AND the RIGHTS it grants) of such businesses or Internet activity (see my latest journal for an example), or most overt of all, our latest presidential popularity contest.
I don't want to sound like I'm "flaming" or "bashing," so I want to say I'm actually glad you're here. Again, by this disagreement, you help turn what could have ended as negative criticism into an actual debate field. Like I said, I don't like one-sided arguments or debates or discussions in general, so I must thank you for bringing in the OTHER point of view.
ME? While I'm currently conservative, if I were living a generation or 2 back from now I would probably be a Liberal. I'm not "partisan-bound," but I know from experience that debating with anyone that IS (partisan-bound) will only result in wasted energy, or worse, responses with some NASTY wording. I'm mostly dominated in Libertarian ideals, but in layman's terms I like to think of myself as a "freedom fighter" in that I support having the ability to make choices without a government making those choices FOR me and if given proper resources, such choices and "liberty" or "freedom" IS something worth fighting for. I don't want to scare you or anybody else with this, so I'm sorry if anything I said is...disturbing.
Sorry for the long comment and doubly sorry if either I sound nuts or, worse yet, stupid.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually thanks for your two cents. It's nice to see an intelligent person from the other side of the argument.
Honestly when I say I'm for big government I just believe certain things (such as big corporations, health care, ect) should be govt. regulated. I do not believe that privacy should be invaded unless one has a GOOD reason to do so
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hey, the pleasure is mutual. I mean there ARE smart people from ALL sides of a fence, although MOST outspoken people are NOT that bright. But me, I like to say I've been inspired by the best.
From my stance, however, government in general, with the fact that they interfere with so many affairs, are in a sense preventing said businesses from "running their course." What I mean is that by big government stepping in, then instead of a bad business going bankrupt (as would be the "natural" but somewhat grim fate), the government will lend a "bailout" which will result in THAT money becoming lost by the bad business in addition to the business's initial losses, and from that the government has just officially wasted funds that they could've used in research. So to recuperate (or try to), the government adds their signature "red tape" as a smokescreen to make people THINK that SOME good is being done, when all that's happening is that resources are going into a void. Such a smokescreen is a traditional government tactic by using CONFUSION to halt any potential movement against them, but it may also backfire when the government ITSELF becomes ensnared by the confusion that it itself has created (which is what I blame for the slow progress of...really, anything that they stamp). This backfire acts as a double-whammy when added atop the rest of the populace or even simply the business becoming confused from the "red tape" and its complications, ultimately making the entire system in layman's terms "mucked up." That's the end product: "The system's mucked up!"
Secondly, I remember that there are supposed to be many concepts that were ideally left as "private" matters, such as most transactions (like purchases, including businesses), hobbies (like sports), and lifestyle choices (like playing vulgar music), all of which should be totally "lazzie faire" of government intervention.
Also, the government claims to have found "GOOD reason" to invade privacy, but the trouble from what I see is that their measures are usually overboard, impacting EVERYBODY or a large range of people. I mean in recent times I have heard of multiple "acts" that to me have good intentions but humiliatingly poor executions or are handled the absolutely wrong way. Take the First Amendment for example, a more "controversial" topic (as referenced earlier). From what I've noticed, the more that "freedom of speech" gets suppressed, the louder the objections become and the more overt the protests develop (Remember 9/12, but I think that was more linked to health care, but it was potentially a sign of neglect from the government meaning it has SOME relevance to free speech). If you really want to go into a potentially hot zone, try the Second Amendment (my personal favorite). The higher the restriction (such as in New York City), the higher the crime rate and the more defenseless the law-abiding become. Now, I'm mostly speaking in rule-of-thumb, here, but within believable boundaries of legitimation. However, the concept was that "with higher regulations, less people will be armed and thus less people will be potential threats." The misconception, however, is that the illegal acquirements (like pirating) for crooks don't stop simply because some piece of paper demands it. Also they have ways to defeat enforcement (which is why they're so covert in dealings). So the law-breakers, the TRUE dangers, get their armaments. MEANWHILE, the law-abiding, playing by The Rules, have serious trouble getting equipped with defensive technology due to the misconception that it is ONLY usable for offensive measures. In the end, "bad guys" end up triumphing and The People are victims and the Law-Makers say "we need MORE regulations" and the spiral goes on and on. Again, good motive, bad handling.
The bottom line is that no matter how noble the cause may seem or how appealing the word choice is, if it involves government I can't really see much good coming out of it. I mean like you proved, government in general HAS done SOME benefitial things (wasn't it the Hoover Dam that helped end the Great Depression by giving more jobs, or do I have something confused?), but in modern times with how inflated it has become, I'm afraid I can't put any faith into it. Personally, I do believe in a limited government, or ideally self-regulation: where your only government is YOU.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
no hippies please.
do not skew my polls.
follow BO drawing guidelines.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Can you at least TRY to justify your views instead of copying the same thing into every comment?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
you have kookified yourself.
no hippies please.
do not skew my polls.
follow BO drawing guidelines.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Explain? I typed out my explanation yet you have done nothing to prove your point,
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
no hippies please.
do not skew my polls.
follow BO drawing guidelines.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Incorrect. Profiteering robber barons of uncontrolled industry and religous right wing fanatics like you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Hell yes. Insta fav. <3
Our government has got it's hands in the cookie jar when it comes to our lives. I hope the cookies are at least poisoned. Cause this country is going down the crapper if no one speaks up...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
very agreed. They need to keep their hands off our cookies.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Two words. *Clears throat and gets megaphone*
DAMN RIGHT!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Does it ever feel weird that we conservatives are the ones now talking down "the man"?
I like the self-regulating system. Each individual has the liberty to handle their own affairs as they see fit. Very little government is needed. The governments of the world have forgotten their purpose and their place. In the US there is no excuse, we have a few documents that make it pretty clear.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Self-regulating...where all have liberty and even the government is governed. That sounds ideal. The ONLY flaw, though, is that much of "self-regulation" requires a sense of honor to work constructively, something that many (but not all) people have lost. However, from MY personal standpoint simply basing off myself as a person, I would love to live in self-regulation! That actually sounds more like a DREAM: The ONLY government to me, is ME, and the only government to you, is YOU!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Neat thing about it being a self regulating system is that people acting poorly will be acted against by the majority trying to act fairly and rightly. There is no need for a heavy government hand in many of these affairs (doesn't mean no government, just not nearly as involved in everything as it is now). Natural law will take care of it, and you can't break natural law it is absolutely enforced everywhere in the universe.
There are lots of examples.
Like bailing out banks or corporations by government BAD idea. In a self-regulating system the idea of losing all your money should be enough to keep your risk taking with other people's money under control. People who make bad choices won't find themselves entrusted with very much. Right now that doesn't happen and worse, laws force banks to make fiscal choices that are unsound.
You don't need honor, just self-interest. I'm pretty sure we all have that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I see what you're saying. I also am to some measure a fan of "natural selection," meaning that bad results will come out of bad choices and the such, like a "serves you right" policy. People depend on banks far too much to be forced to lose "Trust" or "faith" in them, so instead of letting them collapse, SOMEone had to try and "save" them. We all know what happened THERE...right?
Right now, I'm just trying to see the other side and think about what could be some potential risks to inflated "self-interest." But look at the so-called "Wild West:" If you wrong someone, you'd better be prepared to pay with your LIFE! That's the kind of legal system I can only FANTASIZE about!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually the wild west wasn't nearly as wild as some think.
The US Marshals (the original cops in the US, founded by George Washington!) were big in the West and people saw some steep and assured consequences for unjustified homicide. Beyond that it was well known that the law couldn't be absolutely enforced so it was simple so that all could understand and act if wronged (maybe at gunpoint but not necessarily rounds fired).
There's a few cases of Sheriffs around the west (some here in Montana) that were so corrupt the town took them out on their own. You know that everyone around you has the same authority and ability to act that you do. Except it is everyone against you if you act poorly. Odds look bad, you don't have a bunch of hapless victims. Self-regulating system we're all the cops in effect, it's not the police's problem. It's ours. We would still have police officers as adjudicators, mediators, and heavily and openly armed citizens but their role goes from protecting us absolutely (which is impossible, and admitted by every police agency and several supreme court cases) to being there as our backup. Imagine that, call the police and it's your friends/neighbors showing up to help you with a problem.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I like - no, LOVE - the sound of that! Also thanks for the teachable moment.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Tell your friends. I think we still govern ourselves, and the US was this way once.
If these kind of ideas spread and take root we can have our country and liberty back.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yes the US Constitution is a very simple document that basically limits gov. How far we have strayed.
Now we need to ask permission from gov to trim trees in our own yards.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
We should've gone with a democracy like the Swiss have, it's more local and direct.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
YEah, I've heard about the Swiss, and they seem to have their act together. I mean I don't blame them for their neutrality (with how mucked up the motives and such are for world events), they support firearm liberties, and I could go on but the point is I support the Swiss System! On the other hand, the other point is correct to say that our system WOULD be fine if it weren't so centered around the god-damned POLITICIANS!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
well if politicians were not so self-serving, ours would be fine.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
And their jobs actually take care of the people so they can live while still paying taxes.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thank goodness the Obamacare bill is locked up in the Senate. I agree, we need less government; the show Firefly put it the best that I've heard "Isnt that what governments are for? Io get in a man's way?"
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
we can't rest w/ obamacare. keep calling you rep & senators. It was not supposed to get this far.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It's scary to me it even got TO the senate in the first place.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Quick! Do you like the fact that you can sue over a faulty product? If so then you like bigger government.
Free-market capitalism could not exist without an active government that provides the extensive legal infrastructure that creates and regulates markets and that enables corporations to do business.
Most government programs – such as fire protection, building roads, food stamps, public education, funding scientific research, and Social Security – are very important actually.
Government institutions, like the courts, are the primary way we protect our rights and liberties. Government has also been the main way to expand our rights and freedoms.
and I don't feel like typing anymore
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I agree to a certain extent, but too much government means less of "we, the people". Get what I'm saying?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Okay, how much is too much?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
socialism and communism is too much.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
PSST: Government answers to the people. That's why we like it so much.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Explain the secret, midnight, transparent vote on Obamacare
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The one that's been in debate for ages? The one that people have had months upon months to protest? Are you kidding me? They FINALLY got around to it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
if you are lucky the light will never come on for you and you won't have to look back at all the destruction you caused.
So I am torn. I prefer you to remain on the lib side adding to their weak resume, but at the same time it would be nice for your to realize just how foolish you had been.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
You're right. Liberals have never done anything good for this country. Ending slavery, ending the great depression, winning WWII, the list goes on.
Truth is, any time our country has faced a problem, liberals have tried their hardest to help modernize our country and fix the problems while conservatives fought tooth and nail to keep it in the ways of old. One needs to look no further than the paranoid ravings of Glenn Beck about how we need to bring this country back to what it was in the times of the founding fathers. You know, back in that time of slavery, where women couldn't vote and what would be considered very minor health problem today could completely destroy someone. Yeah, the good ol' days were awesome.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Libs did that? you live in an alternate universe.
Have a nice day.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>