How Do You Convince Americans To Accept LESS From the Govt.?

You do realize all he did was change a few words in Rob Matter's post, don't you?

To address the opening question of the article, which I forgot about:

The vulgar masses will happily accept whatever politicians promise them, ignorant to such economic technicalities as to where the resources are going to come from, deficit spending, inflation, etc. In order break the cycle of electing whatever douchebag makes the most lofty promises and brings home the most earmarks, we need to either (a) get people more educated about economics or (b) remove power from the people. In the end, nothing is free, and people need to understand this.

You do realize I was talking to you, don't you?

Yes, but I'm not sure you appreciate the dynamic that's in play.

Doesn't matter - you said you never mock and then you did.

Adorable. Now, when the people (you know, actual flesh-and-blood individuals) rise up and take away the special privileges Congressmen and women and Senators enjoy, make sure to post this again.

First of all, the quote is *in* quotes...meaning I didn't say it, someone else did (Hettie from NCIS: Los Angeles, to be exact).

Second, I was criticizing, not "mocking."

If I were mocking,

But I would never do that.

Now, watch him go all Megatron with the neg-reps...

Well, first, you call in a B-2 bomber strike and flatten all of the government housing projects and Section 8 housing.

That eliminates most of the problem right there.

How about you get folks to remember these words "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country"?
Unfortunately there have been several generations that were taught "Here's what the country will do for you." We had the ACLU stop things like Workfare claiming the folks were ENTITLED to the money and didn't have to do a thing for it thus we now have welfare. And the government was forbidden to tell folks you will only get this much per month no matter how many babies you spit out because, hey, you gotta think of the kids! Funny, no one thinks of the kids when folks are PRODUCTIVE working members of society - but then those folks see they can't AFFORD more than X children so they practice family planning.

For people who use the word "corporation" as though Bill Gates pinched a loaf in your mouths, it surprises me that you and Liet have so little problem with a government that's comprised of self-serving individuals who, not unlike the executives which you so joyfully villify, take material and financial advantage of their positions, use their respective tenures to insure incumbency and/or a legacy of wealth and power should they be voted out, and who are protected from liability in the event that their actions are abyssmal failures (which they are, as a matter of practice).

In essence, the Federal Government is a protected class of it's own design, acting with even less morality than the corporations about which you consistently bitch.

Wouldn't that be the very definition of, "irony"?

Perhaps a more pertinent title for this discussion should have been, "How do we convince the House and Senate to accept less from the government?"

#1 I didn't know that. I don't watch the show so I thought it was yours. Perhaps you should have attributed it properly instead of stealing it.

#2 I don't care that someone else said it.

#3 You put it there so that means you agree with it because no one here put's a signature they don't support except to put a signature to show the stupidity of another poster (such as a Liet quote). Otherwise you wouldn't have put it there without commenting on it.

So dance away but everyone here pretty much was under the impression that you wrote it and believed it.

I thought it was a quote from Probe.

Meh. I still think it comes down to "convincing" people to vote for the candidate promising the fewest freebies. That's a heavy lift.

Because government uses coercion to take my money, and is politically incapable of exercising discretion over who receives the entitlement. It pays to be a crack whore when you have access to welfare.

But the Salvation Army relies on my donation to do its good work -- a donation I will readily withhold if I feel it is not being put to good use. The Salvation Army discriminates in a way that government cannot. Charity only pays you if you're truly in need (not just because you qualify under some statute), and only if you're willing to get with the program.

And consider the relationship between one person, who pays taxes and contributes to the Salvation Army, and another who could either receive welfare or charity. Either way, the beneficiary is dependent on the benefactor, but which arrangement acknowledges this reality: The one which pretends that the beneficiary is "entitled" to something the benefactor "owes," or the one where the beneficiary is indebted to the benefactor who literally invests in him?

The significance is not that both institutions pay the crack whore. The difference is that one institution punishes taxpayers to subsidize crack whores, while the other one rewards contributors by rescuing the whores who are willing to help themselves.

Do you think you can do as much good, by taking my money and paying women to be crack whores, as I could do with it myself by paying the Salvation Army to turn those same women's lives around?

It's late, so I'll only reply to this section:

But isn't the "truly in need" part up for debate, whether it's by statute or by the Salvation Army? I get the "willing to get with the program part."

Perhaps I'm naive--I would never accept money from the government and think of it as an entitlement if I needed it to survive (and probably wouldn't ask for it unless I were in dire circumstances anyway).

Otherwise, thanks for taking the time to answer the question.

Very possibly so. But that's an argument against libertarianism, not against those who say that limited liability should continue to exist, but with strings attached.

Incentives. When people participate voluntarily, everything is necessarily done as if funding can be withdrawn at any moment. When contribution is coerced, the program is run as if future funding is assured.

The two sides of the same coin are that a) Liberals want the security of a guarantee, because b) they are never satisfied with the results created by free will.

Paraphrasing Milton Friedman, even if everything about charity and welfare were exactly the same, it's simply impossible to do good with other people's money.

Not only that but these congresscritters and presidents are filthy rich.

That's not mocking so much as just being insulting.

This seems to rest on the presumption that, by investing in a company to a certain degree, I automatically become a "decision-maker" regardless of my level of participation, and as such am responsible for everything the company does as though I did it myself. It's hard not to see that as a blatant rationalization for grabbing at money wherever you can find it.

Lace anything that comes from the government with rat poison. It will solve both the American right wings concern with spreading socialism, and the American left wings concern with spreading anti-scientific sentiment.

As the level of rat poison in increased in all government handouts, the weakest will be first to go. The strongest will survive and be forced to find another way to live their lives, both reducing reliance on welfare and acting as a practical demonstration of evolutionary principles in action.

Didn't the Reagan Administration do something like that in the 80s?

Removing the limited liability aspect of corporations (and other limited liability organizations) would be a disaster.

Who would buy stock under such a system? No one. No employee would even think of owning stock in the company. Investment would come to a screeching halt.

Let's take five people: Me, Uncle Albert, Garamet, Caboose, and Bock.

I start up a company and issue 11,000 shares of stock. Six thousand to me (so I retain control of the company) and 1000 each to the others. Uncle Albert, Garamet, Caboose, and Bock don't want to run the company just invest in it because they think it's a great plan. However under the law as stockholders they are OWNERS of the company. (each share cost a $1)

We are going along and we get sued for $10 million dollars because Apostle (who passed all the background checks) started a fight on the clock and shot like 5 Mexicans. He's in jail right now for murder.

We lose the case and appeal it and thanks to our incompetent lawyer (Liet) we still lose and have to pay the $10 million.

Company is only worth two million so we are still on the hook for eight. (Our insurance doesn't protect us from a employee gunning down five Mexicans)

Since I was sinking everything I made back into the company to grow it I've only got about a million. I lose that.

Uncle Albert has $500k in the bank. GONE. (he smoked the other half )
Caboose has $1 million in assets. GONE.
Bock has $1 million in assets. GONE.
Garamet being a rich writer has $10 million in the bank. Well at this point we OWNERS still owe $4.5 million so Garamet being the deep pocket loses $4.5 million.

The law doesn't divy up things equally. There is no, "well he owns only x so he can only pay x". As owners we as a group are all responsible for the total amount. It's why when you sue they talk about going after the deep pockets.

Of course if all of use except for Garamet skipped town and the other side couldn't find us she would be on the hook for all $8 million still owed.

Limited liability would protect all of us from losing everything because of one person whose actions could not have been predicted.

This is the importance of limited liability. Without it no one invests. Without it no one starts a company or expands one.

Pay insurance you say? HA! Insurance rates would be so high no one could afford them but I'm sure insurance companies would love the profits if they could get such a system.

If you remove limited liability then there is zero reason to even form a corporation or any other type of limited liability company. Everything would be sole entrepreneurship type business.

You can use a similar argument to this to support a variety of things like public health care.

No you can't.

Nice example. Limited liability is what makes the economy grow. Without it, no one would invest, no innovation would happen (or the pace would be severely slowed). We would be back to a very, very small ruling class with the vast majority desperately looking for a way out of their truly miserable existence. If the socialists of the board think it's bad now, it just shows they have no idea what life was like 100-200 and more years ago in comparison.

I thought it was the Detroit (or maybe Chicago) Police Department that dropped a bomb from a helicopter on a fortified apartment building and ended up torching several blocks of residences.

Historically, this is not borne out. California had only unlimited liability corporations until the 1920's, except for rare charters granted only a few times. Incorporation rates didn't change after the introduction of limited liability there.

Good thing that nobody at all has advocated that.

Good enough for me to make the point of how important limited liability is and in your case I doubt there is one person on this board who doesn't believe that given the chance you wouldn't strip it away.