|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Aug 20, 2021 12:53:16 GMT
Noam Chomsky Quote on Education “The whole educational and professional training system is a very elaborate filter, which just weeds out people who are too independent, and who think for themselves, and who don’t know how to be submissive, and so on — because they’re dysfunctional to the institutions.”
|
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Aug 21, 2021 4:14:09 GMT
Noam Chomsky Quote on Education “The whole educational and professional training system is a very elaborate filter, which just weeds out people who are too independent, and who think for themselves, and who don’t know how to be submissive, and so on — because they’re dysfunctional to the institutions.” And he wanted to change it, not eliminate it. |
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Aug 21, 2021 12:41:42 GMT
Noam Chomsky Quote on Education “The whole educational and professional training system is a very elaborate filter, which just weeds out people who are too independent, and who think for themselves, and who don’t know how to be submissive, and so on — because they’re dysfunctional to the institutions.” And he wanted to change it, not eliminate it.
The way I see it he and others have used it exactly as it was designed to be used.
Yet again, I'm laughing that you're just as disappointed in the end result as I am.......but you don't see the govt or it's process as the problem?
|
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Aug 22, 2021 10:21:38 GMT
And he wanted to change it, not eliminate it.
The way I see it he and others have used it exactly as it was designed to be used.
Yet again, I'm laughing that you're just as disappointed in the end result as I am.......but you don't see the govt or it's process as the problem?
When have I ever said that government is not part of the problem?
Don't put words in my mouth, Abs.
|
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Aug 22, 2021 14:00:32 GMT
The way I see it he and others have used it exactly as it was designed to be used.
Yet again, I'm laughing that you're just as disappointed in the end result as I am.......but you don't see the govt or it's process as the problem?
When have I ever said that government is not part of the problem?
Don't put words in my mouth, Abs.
Again, it's just in the difference in how we see it, imo........your idea is "Fix the Govt and make it work the way it does in my imaginary Utopia. So magically change it." (Yes, I placed the words imaginay and magically in your mouth there)
My idea is "The problems wouldn't be nearly so large and corrupted if the Govt itself wasn't so large and corrupt. So shrink it." To which you and others believe is an absolute not even up for discussion.
I think that's called an impasse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Aug 23, 2021 3:15:40 GMT
When have I ever said that government is not part of the problem?
Don't put words in my mouth, Abs.
Again, it's just in the difference in how we see it, imo........your idea is "Fix the Govt and make it work the way it does in my imaginary Utopia. So magically change it." (Yes, I placed the words imaginay and magically in your mouth there)
My idea is "The problems wouldn't be nearly so large and corrupted if the Govt itself wasn't so large and corrupt. So shrink it." To which you and others believe is an absolute not even up for discussion.
I think that's called an impasse.
I think the only real difference is that when you say, "smaller government," your first thought is to eliminate programs or at least not add anything new. My idea is that government should be more efficient (while becoming more effective), which may or may not decrease the "size" (which I assume to mean some specific number of employees) of government but I definitely want the right people in the right places doing the right things for the right costs.
If accomplishing the right goals can be done with (the right) 700 people rather than (the wrong) 1,000, then I definitely want the right people in and the wrong people out. If accomplishing the right goals means having 1,000 of the right people and not 700 overpaid slackers then I want the right 1,000 people.
And, yes, there needs to be a budget and we need to stick to it. If we can't then we've obviously still got some "wrong people" in the "wrong places." If the goals are not being accomplished, then we've got the "wrong people."
And I also acknowledge that there are more than a few government employees who are the "wrong people" no matter where they are. They need to go.
I'm guessing that your knee-jerk response is going to be to say that they are all "wrong" and they all need to go. You might even be thinking that "privatizing" certain things would be the bast bet but turning public services into a "for profit" venture still has taxpayers funding certain (if not all aspects of the service) for the financial betterment of a few and probably to the financial and social detriment of the many.
Look at our privatized prison system: we went out and made legislation to ensure that there would be enough "criminals" to fill enough cells to ensure that the private contractor made a profit off the taxpayers... and off the cheap (some might say "slave") labor of the inmates. Prison guards are routinely mistreating the very people who make their uniforms. You drive down highways looking at signs that were manufactured in a for profit prison. A lot of the clothing you find in "surplus stores" was manufactured by prison labor.
Just imagine how many law-abiding (but unemployed) Americans would love to make those signs and clothes for a fair wage and become taxpayers.
Fuck. Look who I'm talking to. You'll just make up some bullshit response attacking a single aspect of what I've said while never acknowledging the interconnectedness of the larger picture.
|
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Aug 23, 2021 8:29:59 GMT
I think the only real difference is that when you say, "smaller government," your first thought is to eliminate programs or at least not add anything new. My idea is that government should be more efficient (while becoming more effective), which may or may not decrease the "size" (which I assume to mean some specific number of employees) of government but I definitely want the right people in the right places doing the right things for the right costs.
If accomplishing the right goals can be done with (the right) 700 people rather than (the wrong) 1,000, then I definitely want the right people in and the wrong people out. If accomplishing the right goals means having 1,000 of the right people and not 700 overpaid slackers then I want the right 1,000 people.
And, yes, there needs to be a budget and we need to stick to it. If we can't then we've obviously still got some "wrong people" in the "wrong places." If the goals are not being accomplished, then we've got the "wrong people."
And I also acknowledge that there are more than a few government employees who are the "wrong people" no matter where they are. They need to go.
I'm guessing that your knee-jerk response is going to be to say that they are all "wrong" and they all need to go. You might even be thinking that "privatizing" certain things would be the bast bet but turning public services into a "for profit" venture still has taxpayers funding certain (if not all aspects of the service) for the financial betterment of a few and probably to the financial and social detriment of the many.
Look at our privatized prison system: we went out and made legislation to ensure that there would be enough "criminals" to fill enough cells to ensure that the private contractor made a profit off the taxpayers... and off the cheap (some might say "slave") labor of the inmates. Prison guards are routinely mistreating the very people who make their uniforms. You drive down highways looking at signs that were manufactured in a for profit prison. A lot of the clothing you find in "surplus stores" was manufactured by prison labor.
Just imagine how many law-abiding (but unemployed) Americans would love to make those signs and clothes for a fair wage and become taxpayers.
Fuck. Look who I'm talking to. You'll just make up some bullshit response attacking a single aspect of what I've said while never acknowledging the interconnectedness of the larger picture.
Not at all. Obviously Govt will always have some very crucial and basic services to provide.
My main argument would be to just weed out all of the extra stuff that's been added decade after decade. There has to be a saturation point, no?
Prison guards should rarely even come into contact with prisoners....and there should obviously be less Govt/fewer laws that end up imprisoning people.
My cousin used to sew together military equipment while he was imprisoned. His major complaint while on the inside was having to worry about his own personal safety ........cuz he was surrounded by some very, very dangerous people. Not so much about the guards, though.
It's that interconnectedness that I'm usually trying to avoid in my efforts for everyone to become more self-reliant and not be so dependent on one another. ![[giveup]](//storage.proboards.com/7182076/images/FSYefibmKqtatIXMgHZg.gif) |
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Aug 24, 2021 1:18:18 GMT
I think the only real difference is that when you say, "smaller government," your first thought is to eliminate programs or at least not add anything new. My idea is that government should be more efficient (while becoming more effective), which may or may not decrease the "size" (which I assume to mean some specific number of employees) of government but I definitely want the right people in the right places doing the right things for the right costs.
If accomplishing the right goals can be done with (the right) 700 people rather than (the wrong) 1,000, then I definitely want the right people in and the wrong people out. If accomplishing the right goals means having 1,000 of the right people and not 700 overpaid slackers then I want the right 1,000 people.
And, yes, there needs to be a budget and we need to stick to it. If we can't then we've obviously still got some "wrong people" in the "wrong places." If the goals are not being accomplished, then we've got the "wrong people."
And I also acknowledge that there are more than a few government employees who are the "wrong people" no matter where they are. They need to go.
I'm guessing that your knee-jerk response is going to be to say that they are all "wrong" and they all need to go. You might even be thinking that "privatizing" certain things would be the bast bet but turning public services into a "for profit" venture still has taxpayers funding certain (if not all aspects of the service) for the financial betterment of a few and probably to the financial and social detriment of the many.
Look at our privatized prison system: we went out and made legislation to ensure that there would be enough "criminals" to fill enough cells to ensure that the private contractor made a profit off the taxpayers... and off the cheap (some might say "slave") labor of the inmates. Prison guards are routinely mistreating the very people who make their uniforms. You drive down highways looking at signs that were manufactured in a for profit prison. A lot of the clothing you find in "surplus stores" was manufactured by prison labor.
Just imagine how many law-abiding (but unemployed) Americans would love to make those signs and clothes for a fair wage and become taxpayers.
Fuck. Look who I'm talking to. You'll just make up some bullshit response attacking a single aspect of what I've said while never acknowledging the interconnectedness of the larger picture.
Not at all. Obviously Govt will always have some very crucial and basic services to provide.
My main argument would be to just weed out all of the extra stuff that's been added decade after decade. There has to be a saturation point, no?
Prison guards should rarely even come into contact with prisoners....and there should obviously be less Govt/fewer laws that end up imprisoning people.
My cousin used to sew together military equipment while he was imprisoned. His major complaint while on the inside was having to worry about his own personal safety ........cuz he was surrounded by some very, very dangerous people. Not so much about the guards, though.
It's that interconnectedness that I'm usually trying to avoid in my efforts for everyone to become more self-reliant and not be so dependent on one another. 1. "Very basic services" My guess - just a guess - is that most (if not all) of the "very basic services" you might list are all services which you currently benefit from or think you might benefit from in the future and everything else is everybody else' problem.
2. See above
3 And yet they do. And we'll come back to them in a moment.
I'm not sure how "less government" = "fewer laws" as the legislative body has been exactly the same size for quite a while now. I'm guessing that you're talking about government agencies and departments that were created in order to oversee the functions of new legislation. I could possibly agree with you, depending on which departments and agencies you're talking about. The "Department of Homeland Security" springs to mind along with a number of its constituent agencies. Lots of streamlining to be had.
The other thing that comes to my mind is that, despite your calls for "smaller government" and "fewer laws" that you would actually want higher budgets and more personnel in certain departments and agencies... such as immigration and police departments. I can't fault you on the former but on the latter, I can't help but get the feeling that you'd still champion a number of laws that most other people think are useless.
4. As for your cousin, if he was in prison with some very, very dangerous people, I'm inclined to suspect that he is also at least a bit dangerous. And I'm also thinking that his interactions with the guards were "pleasant" because he saw how they treated inmates that weren't as "respectful." But I don't want to get into some off-topic discussion about how most prison guards are like Paul Edgecomb when we know that most of them are more like Percy Wetmore.
5. But we ARE dependent on each other. I'd normally use a "team" metaphor here, but today I think I'll go with "wall."
Can you lay a line of bricks on the ground and call it a wall? Of course not. You have to stack them in order for them to become an effective wall. Does stacking them remove the individuality of any of the bricks? Of course not. Each brick is exactly the same as it was - weaker or stronger than the other bricks, chipped... possibly even a little cracked... maybe even a tad different in size or shape - but together they are stronger and more effective that they were as individuals. But they could be even stronger and more effective, couldn't they? We just need a little mortar to cement them together.
You might say that some bricks don't want to be in a wall, but what good is a brick sitting on its own except as a tool to break a window or throw at the wall?
You might also be thinking that some of those weaker bricks will crumble a little more easily. That's why there are other bricks around them to keep the wall standing.
What really matters is the mortar: the binding agent. Mix it poorly or with the wrong ingredients or in the wrong ratios and the wall will crumble under an onslaught or maybe even under its own weight. We can use it to fill in the cracks and chips in the bricks. We can use it to even out the differences in size between the larger and smaller bricks. We use it to keep the wall level. The weak bricks are now just as strong and the strong bricks aren't handling the whole load. The wall is STRONG and no individuality was lost, only enhanced.
|
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Aug 24, 2021 1:43:30 GMT
1. "Very basic services" My guess - just a guess - is that most (if not all) of the "very basic services" you might list are all services which you currently benefit from or think you might benefit from in the future and everything else is everybody else' problem.
Milton Friedman - “Government has three primary functions. It should provide for military defense of the nation. It should enforce contracts between individuals. It should protect citizens from crimes against themselves or their property.
|
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Aug 24, 2021 1:45:37 GMT
5. But we ARE dependent on each other. I'd normally use a "team" metaphor here, but today I think I'll go with "wall."
Can you lay a line of bricks on the ground and call it a wall? Of course not. You have to stack them in order for them to become an effective wall. Does stacking them remove the individuality of any of the bricks? Of course not. Each brick is exactly the same as it was - weaker or stronger than the other bricks, chipped... possibly even a little cracked... maybe even a tad different in size or shape - but together they are stronger and more effective that they were as individuals. But they could be even stronger and more effective, couldn't they? We just need a little mortar to cement them together.
You might say that some bricks don't want to be in a wall, but what good is a brick sitting on its own except as a tool to break a window or throw at the wall?
You might also be thinking that some of those weaker bricks will crumble a little more easily. That's why there are other bricks around them to keep the wall standing.
What really matters is the mortar: the binding agent. Mix it poorly or with the wrong ingredients or in the wrong ratios and the wall will crumble under an onslaught or maybe even under its own weight. We can use it to fill in the cracks and chips in the bricks. We can use it to even out the differences in size between the larger and smaller bricks. We use it to keep the wall level. The weak bricks are now just as strong and the strong bricks aren't handling the whole load. The wall is STRONG and no individuality was lost, only enhanced.
You? Promoting walls?
|
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Aug 24, 2021 3:11:18 GMT
5. But we ARE dependent on each other. I'd normally use a "team" metaphor here, but today I think I'll go with "wall."
Can you lay a line of bricks on the ground and call it a wall? Of course not. You have to stack them in order for them to become an effective wall. Does stacking them remove the individuality of any of the bricks? Of course not. Each brick is exactly the same as it was - weaker or stronger than the other bricks, chipped... possibly even a little cracked... maybe even a tad different in size or shape - but together they are stronger and more effective that they were as individuals. But they could be even stronger and more effective, couldn't they? We just need a little mortar to cement them together.
You might say that some bricks don't want to be in a wall, but what good is a brick sitting on its own except as a tool to break a window or throw at the wall?
You might also be thinking that some of those weaker bricks will crumble a little more easily. That's why there are other bricks around them to keep the wall standing.
What really matters is the mortar: the binding agent. Mix it poorly or with the wrong ingredients or in the wrong ratios and the wall will crumble under an onslaught or maybe even under its own weight. We can use it to fill in the cracks and chips in the bricks. We can use it to even out the differences in size between the larger and smaller bricks. We use it to keep the wall level. The weak bricks are now just as strong and the strong bricks aren't handling the whole load. The wall is STRONG and no individuality was lost, only enhanced.
You? Promoting walls?
And there's another instance of you leaning far more right than you used to.
|
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Aug 24, 2021 5:32:00 GMT
And there's another instance of you leaning far more right than you used to.
I don't see how that is me changing.
Have I not always supported border security and deporting all illegals?
Have I not acknowledged that walls are not totally impregnable......but in conjuction with actually enforcing laws, they reduce the problem.
For a country/people that want so much security provided for by Govt........it's hilarious to me that ACTUAL security is too much to ask. Unless it's the politicians' workplaces or neighborhoods, of course. A pox on them all.  |
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Aug 24, 2021 11:46:14 GMT
And there's another instance of you leaning far more right than you used to.
I don't see how that is me changing.
Have I not always supported border security and deporting all illegals?
Have I not acknowledged that walls are not totally impregnable......but in conjuction with actually enforcing laws, they reduce the problem.
For a country/people that want so much security provided for by Govt........it's hilarious to me that ACTUAL security is too much to ask. Unless it's the politicians' workplaces or neighborhoods, of course. A pox on them all. But you are ignoring the fact that I have said that physical barriers are a plus and the fact that I actually offered a solution that included a wall. By suggesting that I am anti-any wall when you know full well that I'm not. That's what has changed about you, Abs and that's what makes you more than a bit loathsome. |
|
![[giveup]](http://storage.proboards.com/7182076/images/FSYefibmKqtatIXMgHZg.gif)
![[cheers]](http://storage.proboards.com/7182076/images/engyBVslEdpmpmdnBwZQ.gif)