And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020

[JBS]

     This is theology. Government is the tool for public purposes. It's neither good nor bad in itself. Even when it's the case that government creates problems in the process of solving others, government action is needed, as when damage to the economy from deregulation/recorruption of financial institutions requires the government to right such wrongs. Capitalism is one of the most successful government programs ever implemented. Though it receives more coddling than it needs, it certainly couldn't long survive in a government free environment. Markets as we know them are creatures of the law, as is the national currency.

     Continuous adjustment will always take place. The anti-government priesthood needs government as much as normal people do. How else could they abolish public services and "right wrongs" if they couldn't "intrude"?

There are public purposes, and public goods. There are things which pretend to be public purposes and public goods, but are not actually public purposes and public goods. The latter category is far larger than the former.

[drogulus]

That's  the correct approach. Make it a last resort.

     It is a last resort for you? My guess is you resort to government as much as any so called statist. Most anti-government theology has to do with what government does for other people. What it does for you is taken for granted. But those people over there, they don't deserve government. So long as you are not an over there people, you're good.

    If there is a government, one should want it to provide for those needs that can't otherwise be met, not according to the a priori judgments of theologians, but the practical judgments of the citizenry as outlined in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, which says the purpose of government is to "promote the general welfare". What this means is then up to a self-governing people to decide.

There are public purposes, and public goods. There are things which pretend to be public purposes and public goods, but are not actually public purposes and public goods. The latter category is far larger than the former.

     Make the arguments on the merits for each case, just as they were when the programs were first established. Regulation and deregulation can be seen as discrete steps, or
as I see it, continuous adjustment. Nothing is gained by the judgment that the process lacks legitimacy.

[greg]

     It is a last resort for you? My guess is you resort to government as much as any so called statist. Most anti-government theology has to do with what government does for other people. What it does for you is taken for granted. But those people over there, they don't deserve government. So long as you are not an over there people, you're good.

    If there is a government, one should want it to provide for those needs that can't otherwise be met, not according to the a priori judgments of theologians, but the practical judgments of the citizenry as outlined in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, which says the purpose of government is to "promote the general welfare". What this means is then up to a self-governing people to decide.

If you are thinking I'm against something like unemployment or food stamps, then um, no, you'd be wrong. That would be a last-case scenario thing for many people.

What I have in mind is more like how the Chinese government is trying to reverse the trend of China being the least charitable nation on earth, by using the social credit system (or at least, one of the reasons for it?). Surely, better solutions can come within (though I think mostly it would be a matter of time for charitability to rise). Government stepping in just makes things worse, creating many new problems. (And the reason they are so uncharitable to begin with is due to the government). Create problems, act like you are solving them by creating new problems, and then the spiral ends in complete totalitarianism. 

[Madiel]

We have all those local governments fragmented and broken up by design. The less power and geographic spread a governmental entity has, the better.  Government is sometimes good...but generally speaking, if there is a problem, governmental intrusion makes it worse, and usually there's a nongovernmental solution that works better.

I rest my case. This is nothing more than an ideological assertion.

The same person who tells me he wants to solve racism in his country is happy to have hundreds or thousands** of institutionally racist police forces, so long as each one of them is only being institutionally racist in a small area to a small number of black people.

We wouldn't want any lessons from the police forces that are addressing the problem to spread.

Plus private security firms are so much better at this anyway, right?


**You reportedly have 17,985.  Nearly 18,000 separate institutions all doing the same basic police force job. It must be damn fun coordinating investigations any time a jurisdictional boundary is crossed. But hey, the less power and geographic spread a governmental entity has, the better.

How many different agencies do you have to fight forest fires?

How many different services responsible for vaccination rates?

Who's working on the opioid crisis?

[Madiel]

A system of governance that made sense when most people spent their whole lives in one local community doesn't make sense when lots of people drive across several jurisdictions during their daily commute.

You expect your cell phone company to provide seamless service over that distance, but celebrate the inability of government to do the same.

[71 dB]

Russia abandoned socialism because socialism wasn't working. They didn't convert to capitalism. They converted to cronyism.

I'll be not flippant here...you haven't comprehend the basic principle of American conservatism
Government is a necessary evil. Therefore, in those areas where government is not necessary, get rid of it.

Healthcare and education are a mess in the United States. The main reason they are a mess is because for the last several decades government has been heavily involved in them. So the progressive "solutions" boil down to forcing the victim of poison to ingest even more poison.

The left in the US is not calling for Soviet Union type of undemocratic socialism* or Russian type of crony/oligarchiccapitalism (which the US also has). They advocate Nordic model, tell me what is so bad in Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland if you want to bring out why Bernie's ideas are bad...

Yes, healthcare and education are a mess in the United States. The US can look for examples of countries which have managed to build successful systems. Even Slovenia has free (tax payer funded) education, a Eastern European country quite poor compared to the US. They managed to do it and have a good education system. The US doesn't have these progressive things because the rich have all the power and they don't want to pay their fair share of taxes and give away a rigged system that makes massive profits possible for the expense of regular people. In real democracy the masses don't allow that and vote for politicians who change the system. This election may turn out democratic enough in the US that a candidate like Bernie Sanders gets elected.

*All countries have mixed economies, mixture of socialism and capitalism. The US has socialism too, for example fire department and police.

[Madiel]

It's got nothing to do with what's "proper". Simply what actually works. The whole POINT is that Americans have a fixed idea of what's "proper" and won't let go of it. The fact that you expect me to respond to what I describe as ideology with nothing more than a different ideology speaks volumes for the mindset. You're a country founded on ideals and steeped in them.

I repeat, any time it's pointed out to Americans that other countries actually achieve measurably better results, there's a response based on ideology as to why America could not possibly follow suit.

The American way is the "proper" way even when it's statistically demonstrable that it doesn't work. And if that point is ever conceded, it's along the lines of the "Finland is a small country" excuse.

[Madiel]

One reason there are so many different state, county, and municipal entities engaged in law enforcement, and other public services, is because that is how voters like it, meaning the institutions enjoy democratic legitimacy. 

Well, that's the main thing, isn't it. What you like. Popularity. Bugger outcomes.

[Madiel]

Any supposed superiority of other nations' institutional arrangements is basically irrelevant and simply does not apply to the US, and never will.

No wait, THIS is the main thing.

Classic. American. Ideology.

EDIT: I'm quite sure you're proud of the gerrymander because it's a local American invention.

[Madiel]

Oh look, I can't be arsed Todd. You just gave me a purely ideological rant about why you'll ignore data as a matter of national pride. Your country actually has a law forbidding the collection of data on gun violence.

I haven't bothered reading your last post properly and I won't bother reading the next one. There's simply no point. I'm a foreigner, therefore I know nothing, therefore the conversation is nothing more than an opportunity for you to thump your chest.

You'll continue to live life in a happy little bubble, unless something goes badly wrong at which point it will be the government's fault.  Bye.

[71 dB]

Oh look, I can't be arsed Todd. You just gave me a purely ideological rant about why you'll ignore data as a matter of national pride. Your country actually has a law forbidding the collection of data on gun violence.

I haven't bothered reading your last post properly and I won't bother reading the next one. There's simply no point. I'm a foreigner, therefore I know nothing, therefore the conversation is nothing more than an opportunity for you to thump your chest.

You'll continue to live life in a happy little bubble, unless something goes badly wrong at which point it will be the government's fault.  Bye.

Ignoring Todd is a wise decision.  0:)

[JBS]

I rest my case. This is nothing more than an ideological assertion.

The same person who tells me he wants to solve racism in his country is happy to have hundreds or thousands** of institutionally racist police forces, so long as each one of them is only being institutionally racist in a small area to a small number of black people.

We wouldn't want any lessons from the police forces that are addressing the problem to spread.

Plus private security firms are so much better at this anyway, right?


**You reportedly have 17,985.  Nearly 18,000 separate institutions all doing the same basic police force job. It must be damn fun coordinating investigations any time a jurisdictional boundary is crossed. But hey, the less power and geographic spread a governmental entity has, the better.

How many different agencies do you have to fight forest fires?

How many different services responsible for vaccination rates?

Who's working on the opioid crisis?

Of course our way works better.

Consider a national police force that is institutionally racist. There's no escape from it,  is there? Whereas among our 18,000  police forces, some are not racist, and can be used as examples to prod the others, and as places to escape the racism.

That's why we think fragmented government is a good thing.  Your preference for centralization is really just your own ideological assertion.

Put it another way: we Americans think inefficient government is a good thing. The Constitution was designed to be fundamentally inefficient. An inefficient government can not be tyrannical.

[Madiel]

What on earth makes you think I have a preference for centralization?

It entirely depends on the subject. I'm not the one making blanket statements on the topic. Nor am I the one creating fantasyland scenarios instead of discussing the real word situation of policing in the USA.

And I live in a federal country, not a unitary one.

Whatever. This thread is spectacularly pointless in general.

[71 dB]

This thread is spectacularly pointless in general.

At least Americans can tell us non-Americans we can't know anything... 

[71 dB]

I'd say this applies to every political thread on GMG where ignorant non-Americans prattle on about American politics, but that's not strictly true.  It makes for cheap amusement.

You know we have this thing called the Internet these days. Even non-Americans can educate themselves about US politics. I probably knew about AOC for example months before you did. That's because I watch Youtube videos by the guy (Kyle Kulinski) who wrote her political program as the co-founder of Justice Democrats. I suppose you didn't because to you he is a lefty lunatic. Just shows how ignorant you are yourself, out of touch of what's happening in US politics thanks to the brainwashing of corporate media.

That said, have your delusional amusement reading the posts by us non-Americans. Probably the only amusement you have in your life... ...to me nothing about this is amusing. Depressing and sad if anything seeing how thoroughly brainwashed many Americans here are.

[SimonNZ]

You know we have this thing called the Internet these days. Even non-Americans can educate themselves about US politics.

sigh...

We've had these things called books and newspapers for somewhat longer.

[Christabel]

Last night I watched and enjoyed a film called "Hell and High Water", starring Jeff Bridges (he grows increasingly annoying, though).  It was set in Texas and empty towns everything had closed and people lived in poverty.  It struck me that this is and was Trump Heartland.  The bien pensant from Washington and the eastern and western seaboards couldn't care one iota about those people.  The Democrats can put up any geriatric or fringe loony radical - it won't make a scintilla of difference and Trump will be re-elected because the unemployment rate has dropped magnificently.

It's the economy, stupid.

[SimonNZ]

And yet poverty hasn't disappeared or even decreased at a rate faster than it was lowering under Obama. And if you go to those rural towns they wont be changed or changing. Especially if they're farming communities where things will be getting worse.

So there's either something wrong with the figures or how they're being read.

[71 dB]

The Democrats can put up any geriatric or fringe loony radical - it won't make a scintilla of difference and Trump will be re-elected because the unemployment rate has dropped magnificently.

It's the economy, stupid.

The unemployment rate has dropped magnificently since 2010. The jobs created are mostly low wage jobs. What's the point of working if you struggle and  can't make the ends meet? The economy is good for the rich. They got their tax cuts, again. Trickle down economics is a myth so regular people keep struggling, salaries barely keeping up with inflation.

It's the economy, stupid. That's why Bernie Sanders is polling well.

[JBS]

And yet poverty hasn't disappeared or even decreased at a rate faster than it was lowering under Obama. And if you go to those rural towns they wont be changed or changing. Especially if they're farming communities where things will be getting worse.

So there's either something wrong with the figures or how they're being read.

Christabel is a typical Trumpnik, immune to facts and morals, secure in his (or her) ability to sneer and snark and pretend Ford's in his flivver and all's well with the world as long as Trump has his Twitter.

I wonder if Christabel realizes how many of those poor Texans are the Mexicans Trump wants to rid the US of.

PS
Extra point if you recognize the literary quote.