How Govt. Ruined The Movies

[Chris Nuzzaco]

Man, it's nice to see a lot of libertarian-minded people in here.

Yep, Raise your hand if you have unplugged your brain from our "political matrix" (Left and Right) and seen the truth. :thumbsup:

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

Small "l" libertarian here.

It is time for Atlas to Shrug.

 

[Joseph Ward]

Yep, Raise your hand if you have unplugged your brain from our "political matrix" (Left and Right) and seen the truth. :thumbsup:

YES! :thumbup::thumbup1:

 

[jpp]

It took Alan Greenspan about 80 years to finally figure out that Ayn Rand wrote fiction (and badly), but enlightenment did come to him. You guys may also come around some day....

 

[Chris Nuzzaco]

This is getting FAR away from anti-trust, but I'll close my night with this simple truth:

He who controls the money, especially fiat money, controls all, until it inevitably self destructs.

When the free, private public at large no longer has full control of the monetary system, you loose freedom. The Fed, albeit "private" in some ways, is a terrible idea. Its money backed by nothing, and no one else gets to control it except for the Fed and undeniably, Politicians with influence and power. Think about that, then think about my statement regarding power. Most Americans have no clue that the US has run several fiat money systems into the ground before... prepare for the next time it happens, which isn't too far from now according to history.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Money is intrinsically worthless. It is what the market decides it is worth. It's representative of the relative purchasing power of the US population.

Gold standard is beyond stupid it's dangerous. What happens if the US creates a race of robots which quadruples our productivity and makes us out compete every nation on earth? Should our currency and buying power be related to our productivity and relative output or how much Gold is in a vault somewhere? Answer me that.

The US government isn't terribly inefficient, it just has terrible customer service because it has a monopoly on service. You have no where else to go (or you can not take advantage of its services and avoid the hastle.) If we want better customer service then we need to inform our congressman and women that we want resource prioritized onto that. Would you like the SS system to have more staff to help you with paperwork? Or would you like a larger SS check? It's a 0 sum game.

I've worked with a lot of big corporations. If you think the government is large and wasteful you must have never worked with a fortune 500 company. It's a question of margins. Saving $1,000 here and there just doesn't register on their radar. It's like .00000001% of their annual expenditures so it goes unnoticed. It all slowly adds up but it's a symptom of a large organization not anything special or particular to governance. Do we need more accountability and oversight? You bet. Can you reach a point where the energy to save a buck costs a buck fifty? Yes. Very easily. There is a point of diminishing returns.

Saying that the government does nothing well is an insult to the contributions of all of the effective and patriot men and women who choose service over personal wealth. Police, Social Workers,Teachers, Air Traffic Controllers (ok they actually get payed pretty well.), FBI, accountants, parks service, armed services and armed services.

Are there lazy slackers? You bet. I've gone to McDonalds (the epoch of capitalism) and seen lazier, less efficient people. That's not government. That's a symptom of being so far from leadership that you recognize your insignificance. It's why I work at a small studio. So that I won't be lost in some closet somewhere unable to be heard or contribute. But the converse challenge of a small organization is that our potential is limited to a smaller scope. We also are more selective. At some point you have to reduce your efficiency and personel standards in order to meet volume. That's the paradox of any large organization. Big ambitious projects require waste. You can't micromanage Rome.

When you're shooting a small personal project you know what everyone is doing. You can keep focused you can shape and mold every little detail. But when you grow the scope. When you need a crew of 1,000 you'll have people who aren't always working. You have to communicate. You have to organize. You have to mange. Suddenly you have people who do no work themselves except to orchestrate other individuals. Suddenly there is nobody who has the entire organization in their head. They have to consult. They have to have meetings. Efficiency plummets.

Perhaps your company doesn't waste money like the government. But your company also doesn't serve 300 million people. You don't manage millions of employees and trillions of dollars. Your company can't touch the reach and potential good that the government can. We should never let perfection become the enemy of good.

 

[Danish P.V.]

Here's the problem, a truly free society hasn't even been given a chance.

To the rest of the world, the U.S. seemingly is one of the most "aggressive" "free markets capitalist" society we currently have and what you would like to see is one even more "free"???

 

[Yannick Hagman]

Surely the market needs some regulations. However, too much of those regulations are unhealty as well. Take a look at Germany or maybe Italy, where you can't even resign an employee as an employer. It's not good if employers have to fear that everytime they hire someone. The opposite which you see in the US with almost zero workers rights and no health insurance is also crap. I'm glad that my country seems to have found one of the best agreement so far between social rights and free-market in Europe with being a lot more liberal than countries around us.

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Surely the market needs some regulations. However, too much of those regulations are unhealty as well.

The golden middle, I agree. But it's hardest to achieve in practice.

 

[Yannick Hagman]

The golden middle, I agree. But it's hardest to achieve in practice.

Especially in a two party plutocracy that is. I consider the USA one.

 

[jpp]

Here's the problem, a truly free society hasn't even been given a chance.

So the system you advocate has never been shown to work, the closest approximations range (at best) from economic disasters like Ireland and Iceland (both formerly embraced by the free market crowd as models for America) to the destitution of the Third World, where the state lets its citizens starve at leisure, without burdensome regulation or restraints on foreign investment or local capital, and where everything is for sale.

In other words, you're hawking a system which, you claim, would be truly wonderful if all your conditions were fulfilled, but those conditions have never been fulfilled and never will be fulfilled, as long as we have governments.

There's a word for claims which can never be tested and with no basis in empirical reality: "religion".

As for citing other countries I find that rather odd. Why? Because you, and millions of others probably don't know this: our currency is what backs literally over a hundred other nations currencies. Our currency is worthless (100% crap since 1971, look it up), and thus, so is theirs... You can write whole books on why that setup is a bad idea economically, and I've read them!

No, I don't enjoy your unique wisdom and insight. However, I do live in the real world. The West has been relatively stable for generations now. It may all collapse one day -- tomorrow, or 30 years from now. But that's hardly a basis to embrace free-market dogma which, by your own admission, has never been shown to work and exists only (as you conceive it) as fantasy, to date. Truth is, you sound like a Marxist who wants to try the USSR again, it really wasn't the failure of communism, etc., etc. etc., if only they had.....

Besides most people don't want this paradise of yours. There are higher values than a life of punishments and rewards based on competitive advantage. The Anglo-American model has never been very popular, except among financial elites who don't actually have to live by it. When *they* fail, they clamor for socialism. And they get it.

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Especially in a two party plutocracy that is. I consider the USA one.

Yeah, a two party system = not good.

It's almost as if the party was only one, we had something like that until about 10 years ago. Fake as hell. (Not that the current situation is much better, anyway).

But on the other hand, the instability of parliamentary democracy is another issue.

My ideal would be, a Presidential democracy like in the US, but with a healthy, multi-party Parliament to counterbalance it.

The division of powers... principles, principles...

 

[Peter Weisberg]

government is one of those things that is impossible to get perfect. its been tried for years and years and years. even harder than getting it right is changing it once its been set. I just hope that americans are ready to embrace change within the system to make it better. A lot of americans still have this cold war mentality to socialism when the truth is its a good balance between captialism and communism allowing for individualism and also the government looking after each of its citizens.

but maybe i should just move to europe...

 

[Yannick Hagman]

But on the other hand, the instability of parliamentary democracy is another issue.

It's very stable with 5-8 parties.

 

[Tom Lowe]

So the system you advocate has never been shown to work

Ever heard of the United States of America? We are the most prosperous and powerful nation on earth because we have this system of limited government and personal liberty, protected by a sublime Constitution, despite the best efforts of our recent politicians to ignore that Constitution. Why do you think this country has done so well? To the extent that we stick to our Constitution and honor both economic and personal liberty, we will thrive. If we ignore the Constitution and drift toward communism, the country will collapse, like the UK is about to, and like the USSR did.

Socialism and communism can never work because they go against human nature. If you pay someone not to work and give him a 6 week vacation on top of it, many will choose not to work. That's human nature.

The reason healthcare is so expensive in the US, for example, has nothing at all to do with the free market. Just the opposite! In a truly free market, people would have catastrophic insurance for car wrecks, cancer, etc. But they would only pay $40 or whatever for a Dr.'s visit. Right now, the free market has been so warped by government intervention that it costs $500 for a bandaid at the hospital.

Right now we have a system in the US where the left wing Democrats protect personal liberty and trample economic liberty. The right-wing Republicans (at least in theory) protect economic liberty, but trample personal liberty. The answer is obvious. It's the answer our Founding Fathers like Thomas Jefferson recommended for us and enshrined in our Constitution - a constitutionally limited federal republic that champions both personal AND economic liberty.

Right now, both parties are ignoring the Constitution. And it will lead to the failure of this experiment in democracy. For example, we have a federal "war on drugs" that allows federal agents to raid people's homes for growing marijuana to trade in local cooperatives, or to smoke themselves -- both of which are perfectly legal under California law. The weed is grown locally, and consumed locally, but the federal government falsely uses the "interstate commerce clause" to grant themselves the power to prevent this activity and throw people in jail! It's completely unconstitutional.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a brilliant response to this trampling of the consitution:

"Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything--and the Federal government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers. ... By holding that Congress may regulate activity that is neither interstate nor commerce under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Court abandons any attempt to enforce the Constitution's limits on federal power." -- Justice Clarence Thomas

The Tenth Amendment of our Constitution prevents this type of federal power grab:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

But the federal government ignores it!

What America needs is a political movement that respects both personal AND economic liberty. After all, they are two sides of the same coin.

 

[jpp]

Ever heard of the United States of America? We are the most prosperous and powerful nation on earth because we have this system of limited government and personal liberty, protected by a sublime Constitution, despite the best efforts of our recent politicians to ignore that Constitution. Why do you think this country has done so well?

And how do you think we got to be prosperous and powerful? The same way every country does it: by protecting emerging industries and socializing the losses of big business. Subsidies even for established and profitable industries, many of which pay no Federal taxes, are in the hundreds of billions a year, thanks to American taxpayers. This has been going on for decades. And this year, of course, those subsidies are in the trillions.

The main difference between us and other western industrial democracies is that they offer their citizens more of the pie, so that the benefits of socialism aren't restricted to the financial oligarchy alone.

We, by contrast, are perfectly happy to let wages fall and cut services to the middle-class and poor, in order to greatly increase the wealth of the top 1%, and vastly increase the wealth of the top .1%.

Why do you think people are drowning in debt in this country? On their salaries, they simply can't afford the products which keep the country "prosperous" (through sales). First, wives were sent out to work. Then one or both spouses took second jobs. When none of that could keep up, people went into debt.

Did we really expect this sham to go on for ever? Without credit, there's no prosperity, because people don't earn enough to buy things. With credit, the economy is unsound. With sustained low wages, which is the choice we've made in this country, there's no way out of this bind.

The notion that economic fairness is somehow communistic baffles me. As I noted previously, life is far more pleasant for most people in a number of other countries. You may prefer the American way. That's your right. But why pretend ours is the best possible world? It may be, if you're comfortable. What about those who aren't comfortable?

 

[Chris Nuzzaco]

So the system you advocate has never been shown to work

I'm saying it hasn't been given a chance, doesn't mean it didn't take hold in the US. Our basic ground work for govt. here is VERY Libertarian, but after day one, we started to loose sight. I guess I should have explained that better... Seriously, read the constitution and I bet you'll hate all of its Libertarian ideals and values if you enjoy big govt. Loose interpretation of the constitution is one reason we've gotten into this mess.

As for Iceland and Ireland as examples, it shows a lack of understanding. They have central banks. Thats not free market, thats not capitalism, thats govt. control. So whats your point? Can you point me to a successful, centrally controlled fiat currency that has withstood the test of time? Good luck.

FYI, Libertarianism is about small govt., very small govt. It's not anarchy, like you assume.

 

[Chris Nuzzaco]

Why do you think people are drowning in debt in this country? On their salaries, they simply can't afford the products which keep the country "prosperous" (through sales).

I'll tell you why. It's: The Federal Reserve and Inflation.

What don't you understand about that? Every day that goes by, your purchasing power dissolves faster than your fixed pay increases. It's a recipe for disaster, no wonder people are forced to barrow money they can't ever pay back. Open your eyes man.

 

[jpp]

I'm saying it hasn't been given a chance, doesn't mean it didn't take hold in the US.

And I'll point out a second time: the conditions you demand, for a fair test of your theory, don't exist in this world, and never will exist in this world. Marxists have been making the same claims for years: if only the Soviet Union had done this or that, we would have had a worker's paradise, etc.

Since your theory can never be tested, what good is it?

 

[M Most]

Socialism and communism can never work because they go against human nature. If you pay someone not to work and give him a 6 week vacation on top of it, many will choose not to work. That's human nature.

"Human nature" is not purely biological. Only the instinct for survival is biological. Everything else is a combination of biology and sociology - people are products of their environment. The fact that you believe what you just stated doesn't show you're human, it shows that you're American. If you were European, or Scandinavian, you would not state what you have stated because you would likely not believe it to be true. Everything you have said represents a truly America-centric way of seeing the world. Which might have some - I said some - validity in the US, but it's far from universal and should not be proposed as such.

The reason healthcare is so expensive in the US, for example, has nothing at all to do with the free market. Just the opposite! In a truly free market, people would have catastrophic insurance for car wrecks, cancer, etc. But they would only pay $40 or whatever for a Dr.'s visit. Right now, the free market has been so warped by government intervention that it costs $500 for a bandaid at the hospital.

Once again, you're talking about a society that doesn't exist. All of your theories are only valid if one believes that people in general, and Americans in particular, are willing and able to give up the greed that is at the very heart of American society. That is not the case. It won't be the case in my lifetime, and it won't be the case in yours.

Right now we have a system in the US where the left wing Democrats protect personal liberty and trample economic liberty. The right-wing Republicans (at least in theory) protect economic liberty, but trample personal liberty. The answer is obvious. It's the answer our Founding Fathers like Thomas Jefferson recommended for us and enshrined in our Constitution - a constitutionally limited federal republic that champions both personal AND economic liberty.

Uhhhhhhh.... right. Good luck with that.