Romney didn't want to be president, insists son

[Ajidica]

Why single out Republicans?

Because recently they are most overtly hawkish. Take the Iran kerfuffle for instance: while the Democrats were rattling the sabre the Republicans were already arranging the cannons. We see that a lot recently.

 

[NickyJ]

I really don't believe this. Why would we believe his son?

This. It seems that well-known people tend to have at least one of their children bash them. Bing Crosby, Ronald Reagan, etc.

 

[Archbob]

Why would Romney want to be president? He's the head of a large corporation. He has distinguished hair and a private jet that flies me way up in the air.

A president's salary is only $400,000. That's like what? 1% of what he makes now? And air force one does not fly as high in the air.

 

[Cutlass]

This. It seems that well-known people tend to have at least one of their children bash them. Bing Crosby, Ronald Reagan, etc.

Which doesn't at all imply that what the kids are saying is wrong....

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Government is really only accountable to the majority.

You keep pointing out this terrible majority. What's the alternative to the majority? The minority. You're literally saying that being accountable to a smaller number of the people you affect is better. And news flash: you're not one of the minority.

Markets are accountable to individuals because if an individual doesn't like a given market, he can choose another.

Do you even understand what these words mean? Because it sounds like you're just regurgitating buzzwords. I literally have no idea what this ridiculous statement means.

It is indeed true that markets likely would exercise violence if they were not legally prevented from doing so. That's why I'm not an ancap. It is true that markets can currrently make your life a living hell with lawyers. But they can't throw you in a cage for not buying their product. Government does.

What on earth are you talking about? What "product" does government "throw you in jail for not buying?" Their sovereignty? If you don't like the country, then leave the country. No one is stopping you.

Let's get something straight. Markets are an idea, nothing more than that. They don't do anything. They don't decide anything. They don't produce anything. They are a medium of interaction. People do all of those things. People exercise violence in defense of "markets." People exercise violence in defense of property. People decide to do things, to set prices, to respond to incentives. Markets are simply the economic reflection of the actions of people.

When has this ever happened?

Quite literally every good you acquire, every material and service that you require, is obtained through the market. The market does not provide you with this for free.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Because recently they are most overtly hawkish. Take the Iran kerfuffle for instance: while the Democrats were rattling the sabre the Republicans were already arranging the cannons. We see that a lot recently.

I would agree with this until Obama, Obama has basically acted like an elephant on foreign policy.

The Republicans would be even worse though. They had to find something to criticize Obama for, so they called him a peacenik

In my defense, I did say I preferred Obama over those who were even more hawkish.

You keep pointing out this terrible majority. What's the alternative to the majority? The minority. You're literally saying that being accountable to a smaller number of the people you affect is better.

I wish they would leave everyone alone, but I wasn't even saying that it would be better for them to be accountable to the minority. Merely that they are, in fact, accountable to the majority, and not everyone else.

And news flash: you're not one of the minority.

How you defining the minority here?

What on earth are you talking about? What "product" does government "throw you in jail for not buying?" Their sovereignty? If you don't like the country, then leave the country. No one is stopping you.

Anything they pay for with taxes.

That I happen to want to live here does not destroy my right to criticize the system. Unless they take that away too... There aren't really any good countries.

 

[Lord of Elves]

That I happen to want to live here does not destroy my right to criticize the system. Unless they take that away too... There aren't really any good countries.

That you happen to want to live here does not give you the right to force your beliefs on everyone else who lives here.

 

[NickyJ]

Why would Romney want to be president? He's the head of a large corporation. He has distinguished hair and a private jet that flies me way up in the air.

A president's salary is only $400,000. That's like what? 1% of what he makes now? And air force one does not fly as high in the air.

Actually, he hasn't been the head of Bain for a decade, and as far as I know, he hasn't been the head of any other companies.

Which doesn't at all imply that what the kids are saying is wrong....

Except when their other kids, their doctors doctors, and others point out that they are wrong. Bing Crosby's kids, Ronald Reagan's doctors, etc.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Who says I want to do so?

You, on the other hand, would enforce your ideology on any seceding state...

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I wish they would leave everyone alone,

It's the 21st century. There no such thing as being left alone. You can't escape civilization. You're so in love with small government, you don't realize that there are two reasons people promoted small government back in the day: 1. because a small and weak government could never pose a danger to business interests, and 2. because communication, along with so many other aspects of life, was so slow that it was incredibly inefficient and wasteful to have a government that was responsible for administering many things. Number 1 is still true, which is why if you are going to have corporations, then you must have a strong government that can counter their power and submit them to the general will. Number 2 is quite obviously an obsolete reason, just like so many other parts of our precious Constitution.

but I wasn't even saying that it would be better for them to be accountable to the minority. Merely that they are, in fact, accountable to the majority, and not everyone else.

Get over it. Democracy is the fairest possible solution. You groan on and on about tyranny, well what greater tyranny is there than for the majority to be oppressed and ruled by a minority?

How you defining the minority here?

You ask to which minority I refer, not how I define minority. Minority has a concrete definition.

The minority to which I refer is those propertied possessors of privilege that you think should run the country, and our lives, instead of that insidious majority of the country.

Anything they pay for with taxes.

That I happen to want to live here does not destroy my right to criticize the system. Unless they take that away too... There aren't really any good countries.

"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." They are a part of the social contract. If you don't like the social contract of a particular society, then don't be a part of it. Go to another society with one that you do like. Sound familiar?

Who says I want to do so?

How exactly do you expect your libertarian utopia to come into being?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Number 1 is still true

True. Corporate subsidies, limited liability laws, regulations that keep smaller competetors out and oligopize industries, exc.

Get over it. Democracy is the fairest possible solution. You groan on and on about tyranny, well what greater tyranny is there than for the majority to be oppressed and ruled by a minority?

You've talked to me about ethics before, so you could probably guess that I don't care how many people are doing the oppression. Its still oppression.

Nonetheless, I tend to agree that democracy (Albeit with as many checks, balances, and decentralization as possible in order to limit the power of the majority) is the best system we can seriously devise. I don't seriously think "Let the Libertarian Party rule" is a viable solution, nor is making me dictator We only have so many possible systems, and I agree that some kind of democracy (loosely defined) is the best one we can devise. I do not, however, agree that this makes it perfect.

And when it REALLY sucks is when a majority in a smaller area wants to secede, and the majority of a larger area forces them to stay. If that's not tyranny I don't know what is.

(This is an "In general" statement, not a US civil war related one.)

The minority to which I refer is those propertied possessors of privilege that you think should run the country, and our lives, instead of that insidious majority of the country.

Maybe you could argue that is how my policies would result, but that does not mean that that is my goal. Its not.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

True. Corporate subsidies, limited liability laws, regulations that keep smaller competetors out and oligopize industries, exc.

There are capitalists in charge of the government. What do you expect? For them to not help their friends?

If you want to have capitalism, you have to have a government that can keep businesses in check. Conservatives used to understand that.

If you don't want a strong government to be necessary, then abandon this ridiculous defense of private property. So long as property exists, it will be owned only by a privileged few, and so long as the keystone of society is owned by a small minority, a strong state must exist to defend it.

No capitalism, no need for government!

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

You've talked to me about ethics before, so you could probably guess that I don't care how many people are doing the oppression. Its still oppression.

So in condemning oppression, you seek to replace it with...even larger repression. Do you not understand scales?

Nonetheless, I tend to agree that democracy is the best system we can seriously devise. I don't seriously think "Let the Libertarian Party rule" is a viable solution, nor is making me dictator We only have so many possible systems, and I agree that some kind of democracy (loosely defined) is the best one we can devise. I do not, however, agree that this makes it perfect.

Who used the P word?

And when it REALLY sucks is when a majority in a smaller area wants to secede, and the majority of a larger area forces them to stay. If that's not tyranny I don't know what is.

(This is an "In general" statement, not a US civil war related one.)

Come off it.

Maybe you could argue that is how my policies would result, but that does not mean that that is my goal. Its not.

So what is your goal?

 

[GhostWriter16]

So in condemning oppression, you seek to replace it with...even larger repression. Do you not understand scales?

I'm not trying to replace majority rule with minority rule. I'm merely saying that wrong is wrong.

Who used the P word?

I believe I have said that Democracy was the least of possible evils, but still an evil. I don't really have anything (Other than utopian solutions) to replace it.

Come off it.

No, I'm making a serious argument.

I hold that while democracy is the least of all possible evils, it is still a moral evil. As such, it is a moral good to reduce centralization, as it reduces the number of people a given majority can control.

Secession is the ultimate application of this. It is a smaller group telling a larger group that they will not be ruled over by that group, that they are instead parting ways. This is always an acceptable means of choosing one's own government, and it doesn't matter to me that it is "Undemocratic" on a national scale. It is allowing people to rule themselves as much as possible. It is an ethical good.

So what is your goal?

A minimalist, peaceful state where everyone has a right to his own property and can compete in a free market.

 

[useless]

A free market that has never existed at any point in human history

 

[Leoreth]

I hold that while democracy is the least of all possible evils, it is still a moral evil. As such, it is a moral good to reduce centralization, as it reduces the number of people a given majority can control.

Shouldn't corporations be decentralised by the same reasoning? Because if you're just decentralizing government, they'll immediately fill the power vacuum.

I'd still like to hear your explanation for the "you can always choose another market" line you posted earlier, because I suspect it might be related to this.

 

[Cutlass]

Except when their other kids, their doctors doctors, and others point out that they are wrong. Bing Crosby's kids, Ronald Reagan's doctors, etc.

Everyone has an opinion. And everyone has both partisans and detractors. You don't know from their statements alone which side is right.

 

[kochman]

Why would Romney want to be president? He's the head of a large corporation. He has distinguished hair and a private jet that flies me way up in the air.

A president's salary is only $400,000. That's like what? 1% of what he makes now? And air force one does not fly as high in the air.

Wow, this is cutting edge.
Ok, first, his time at Bain is LONG over.
Second, he already stated he wouldn't even take the salary.
Third, he doesn't need the money anyway.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I don't really have anything (Other than utopian solutions)

A minimalist, peaceful state where everyone has a right to his own property and can compete in a free market.

I guess so...

Why this obsession with property? It's the big kink in your machine, so to speak. (Private) property is by necessity always going to be a minority-run affair, because property is wealth, and wealth is power, and people are not going to redistribute their wealth voluntarily, nor with they relinquish their power or the source of their power voluntarily. This necessitates that such an institution be protected by violence or threats of violence, since the majority (and we are talking upwards of 90% here, not your proverbial and absurd 50.1%) will either want or require those things of which the minority is in possession.

If I did not know better, I could only devise from the points you have given that you have no qualms about being ruled over by corporations, who can direct both the citizens and the country as they see fit to turn greater profits. But you have also stated that you have an interest in protecting civil liberties like freedom of speech, religion, and the press. What respect do you expect a profit-bent corporation to show to these freedoms, without the threat of punishment by the state for their infraction?

I know that you qualify this point by saying that the minimalist government is one which exists purely for the protection of those liberties. But just how powerful must a government be to protect its citizens from large corporations? Without the power to seriously punish them for infractions, a government and the constitutional rights it protects are just and idea and some words on paper. And so in order to protect the rights of citizens, agencies and a bureaucracy are required. Those things are funded by taxes. So do you see how much trouble flows from your simple proposition that men are entitled to property? You literally cut off your nose to spite your face.

And so you can only arrive at either the position of liberals, that government is an unfortunate but necessary evil, or the position of socialists, that property, and everything that flows from it, is what stands between us and a peaceful, stateless society. It's up to you. But you can't have it all: a small government, a peaceful society, private property, and the protection of civil liberties.

 

[NickyJ]

Everyone has an opinion. And everyone has both partisans and detractors. You don't know from their statements alone which side is right.

Which gets back to Disgustipated's point: Why would we believe him?