"It’s been called one of the worst cases of government abuse ever committed against a home schooling family: the abduction by Swedish authorities of Domenic Johansson, a happy, healthy, 7-year-old boy taken from his parents Christer and Annie Johansson in 2009 as they waited to leave Sweden on a flight to India.
After the abduction, the Johanssons’ story spread quickly on the Internet.
But three years later, Domenic is still being kept from his parents, and Swedish authorities keep finding new reasons for why the child can’t go home."
For some reason, more than any other tragedy like war and corruption, the state stealing of children upsets me more than anything else. This is but one of many instances of social services irreparably damaging families by stealing children for no good reason. No, wait, the reason was that the kid 'had cavities' and the parents were 'human rights fanatics'. I don't understand, shouldn't we all be human rights fanatics???
(People who praise social services also fail to notice that a child is more likely to be abused in care than with their parents.)
This is not a singular incident, this simply happens to be one case that got some coverage (though mainstream media fails to touch it). The government will NOT investigate itself, as demonstrated by the Hollie Grieg incident in Scotland. This is the price you have to pay when you willingly give up your liberty for a 'service'.
Holly Griegs was a case of sexual abuse....the ones who had her were using her for sex! Maybe in this case too?
Just recently, a high level English Dame or something was arrested for providing children for sex to members of her "social crowd"....
Sex slaves/ drug mules/ prostitution....kids are prey to many predators in this world.
And we had a big scandals here in Mass years and years ago....2 kids taken away, then died in a fire at foster home...
It's a tricky tricky situation. Because abusive parents lie, and abusive foster homes lie, and abusive state agencies lie.
Not saying I agree with the decision but his parents refused to allow him his vaccinations... They definitely deserve to be slapped around the head, they are placing the life of their child at significant risk by doing this, also apparently they were practicing some pretty out there homeschooling techniques and testing by the government shows him to be way behind academically.
http://www.infowars.com/for-the-record- … s-exposed/
I think you deserve to be slapped around the head if you vaccinate your kids after reading that. However, I'm not going to call social services on you because liberty is a pretty good thing, and you and you only should be responsible for your children's health.
If by 'out there' you mean nothing like public education, then yippee, that kid must be a million miles ahead of everyone else. And 'testing by the government' literally means nothing to me. What that translates to is 'the government covered their ass using this excuse'. They made a mistake, and one thing statists NEVER do, is admit they made a mistake.
I know at least one of you wants to move to Sweden. Think again.
Sweden has much good to be said for it. They actually practice family values there.
In before "Yeah well I once visited Sweden and had a very nice time, therefore you are wrong."
Can vouch for the comment about abuse. My wife has a degree in social work, and her least favorite undergrad internship was where she basically had to go along and help inspect the conditions of children living in foster care. She's got a few stories about walking in on people as they scrambled to hide the cages, figuratively speaking.
I don't know what the answer is but the state can only do so much before it becomes part of the problem. The bigger government programs get the more they care about dotting i's and crossing t's and the less they care about people.
And of course things like that have never happened in the US...
You can hardly judge an entire country on one case, which I think is awful by the way.
Nor of course in the UK, oh hang on, they happen all the time in the UK, sorry, my slip.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu … apart.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu … rkers.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … again.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu … ldren.html
Loads more where they came from.
Maybe you'd like to revise your opinion innersmiff!
There was no clause in the post that said "Sweden is the only country that does this". I'm simply asking people to think before they support monolithic socialist states like Sweden, as they are rife with corruption. Britain can be classed as one of these states too, but Sweden sets the model for the 1984 level of control that all the trendy liberals LOOOVE so much.
Britain a monolithic socialist state!
Where have you been all your life?
Oh, and trendy liberals in the UK, as you well know, are well on the right, in bed with their Tory bosses.
Well if we're going to get all technical about it, it's not strictly socialism, but it's hardly capitalism either. It's a kind of sick deformed love child of communism and fascism. The point is is that it's statist. The left and right just argue about how exactly one should enslave a population.
No different from the crap that happens here in the US. Acttually Sweden ranks higher in healthcare and personal freedoms than we do.
I was talking to a Swedish woman who was at the park with her two children, ages 3 and 2. Her hubby is working here and they will stay here for 6 mos. She was talking about health care (they need to buy here of course) and how she is being paid by their government to stay home and take care of the children. She opted to do that. I can't remember if the tax withholding is 30 or 40 percent. I can see that there is direct link between willingness to pay higher taxes and good social services. It is directly proportional.
Well shoot, we should all give up our money now and let the government handle everything!
There's a response crafted by reason and problem solving skills....
If this emotional release is how you defend your claims when challenged by a real-life scenario, then there is a lot of doubt shed on your actual knowledge and understanding of your arguments.
That was hardly a real-life scenario sir. I can gather from that that the government gives people money to stay home and take care of their children, which says nothing about the quality of any social services, it just says that the state steals money from people to incentivise women to stay at home. I don't get it. That was supposed to refute my argument? That says nothing about the horrific abuses of the Swedish social services.
And my response was toward the final comment mostly. Directly proportional? Are you serious? By extending that logic, it makes sense to give up our entire earnings.
It is clearly documented by all indicators of human development and happiness(well being) that they are doing good.
If only this country could compete with Sweden and other industrialized countries when it comes to healthcare. We're definitely the laughing stock and we suck when it comes to providing healthcare to our citizens. Where do we rate? Oh yeah, we come in at #37, right above Costa Rica! Way to go!
Not only that. Sweden is also on the top list when it comes to the overall quality of life as a measure of the human development index. This index includes among others some health indicators like life expectancy, infant mortality rate and maternal mortality rate plus economic indices like income, inequality, poverty status and sustainability. Status of women is among the highest including literacy rate and educational opportunities. Most of all, based on index of happiness or well being, they are included in the top ten.
But they have lesser population and their economy is unique. Their economy is doing very well, export oriented and people are skilled because of the kind of educational opportunities they have. Majority of Sweden's industry is privately controlled and in terms of competitiveness its economy ranked 4th.
The American workplace before government regulations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_S … ctory_fire
Sure. That is not to say improvements could not be made without government.
Health and safety regulations are so draconian in Britain that businesses can hardly afford to hire anyone. There are always effects of regulation that you can not immediately see, which is unfortunate because the statists can then easily declare them a success and blame capitalism when anything else goes wrong.
I don't mean to be patronising Innersmiff, but it looks like I might have to be.
Have you ever worked in a factory where the bosses routinely order the removal of safety guards from machines, and don't lose a lot of sleep when workers are maimed and crippled because of their bosses lack of care.
Have you ever worked on a building site where drops are not protected and workers plunge to their deaths?
Ever worked in the asbestos industry and died early?
Indeed there are effects of regulation that you can not immediately see, they are men walking round in full possession of all their limbs and digits. Women walking round with all their teeth and without bow legs.
Of course he hasn't, Innersmiff, I work with a union in my spare time and you would be shocked to see the conditions people work under when the state does not step in to protect them and you would be horrified to see the cruelty and carelessness that employers are content to treat their employees with, if you want a visceral reminder of what happens when the state does not regulate the workplace I suggest you read something about the workplace written before those changes began, I would recommend "The ragged trousered philanthropists", no work throughout winter when the families starved and in summer when there was work sixteen hour days with less than survival wage and any man could be fired and his family starved at the whim of the overseers and that is just scraping the surface, you have never seen places where government has not protected the people, I suggest you do before you make comment on things you don't and can't understand.
In return, why on Earth would you choose to work for those businesses?
What business succeeds that has a horrible health and safety record?
Factory deaths were actually going down before regulation was put in, and continue to go down, so of course the regulation is a resounding success . . . except now the economy is crippled by them. The 'elf & safety disease also spreads to school where kids aren't allowed to run in the playground. It's like a physical form of political correctness.
You make the assumption that people get to choose where they work, many don't have a choice, they either work or they starve along with their families (this is somewhat appeased by the "statist" measure of unemployment benefits, in the USA currently there are less jobs produced monthly than new people entering the workplace, it is very hard to get a job, once you have one leaving it is not always possible, but you don't know anything about any of this do you? You have never experienced it. As for kids not being allowed to run in school is a complete misdirection and has nothing to do with the point at hand.
It's like talking to a child having to explain these things, how old are you?
I would also like to point out that it seems somewhat unfair to pick on Sweden which took a child away from parents who were educating it poorly and denying him potentially life saving vaccinations when in the US last year two children were taken from their parents because of what their parents named them.
Many people have no choice.
Your question "why would you work there?" is irrelevant.
I don't know what you refer to as "elf and safety disease", but you can come out here to Los Angeles, head out to Pacoima or the City of Commerce and see what environmental conditions our youth are developing in....
Check out Bandini Park.....would you like to come and play?
http://www.pacinst.org/reports/freight_ … th_Web.pdf
http://www.lung.org/associations/states … ress-1.pdf
Well, when I was younger the only alternative to working in such industries was not to work at all and seeing as they hadn't decided at the time that it was a good thing to have lots of people not working, we worked.
Up until health and safety regulations plenty of very successful businesses had horrible health and safety records.
Show me evidence that before health and safety regulations factory deaths were going down.
Kids not running in the playground has nothing to do with health and safety regulations. If you know differently you'll have no problem guiding me to the appropriate regulation.
When someone speaks of their personal experiences, that is "real life" in my book. Why is this not the case in yours? Theft is a perception in your mind, but this same thing can be viewed as an investment by the state (and the state gets its money and authority from the citizens, right?) in its future. Here in the United States child care is driving people broke.
I can tell you a cute little story too.
I met a guy who was on welfare once and he had a girlfriend.
That story tells you nothing about the quality of the welfare nor whether it is moral or not, so it doesn't count as an argument for or against welfare. Am I missing something here?
I perceive that the dictionary definition of theft is the taking the property of someone without their consent, which is what tax is. It doesn't matter if you voted for the tax or not, you still have to pay it, so it is theft. In any other 'investment' I have the choice to take the money out if I'm not happy with the results. I sure as Hell can't do that with my taxes, I'd be put in prison.
There's another cute little story right there: child care is driving people broke.
That says nothing about why it's okay to steal from people to help them, and whether it actually works.
But you'd go on happily using the things that other people paid for, or in your language, stealing things that other people had paid for.
innersmiff lives in this delusional world where no one should be sent to jail and no one should defend our borders etc. little does he realize without the tax money taken and used by his government he would in all probability not be alive, you do make a choice to pay tax, firstly because you make choices as part of a democracy and secondly by staying in the country, you are quite welcome to leave, but wherever you are is obviously sovereign territory of a country who has title to it by right of conquest or dominion and thus you must live by the laws dictated by that sovereign power, when that sovereign power demands taxation it is not theft it is part of your obligation for it's protection of you. If you don't want it leave but don't take advantage of the police and military and roads and schools etc that you use and then claim that the cost of it is theft it is payment given for services rendered services were rendered to you and you must pay for them, if you don't want the payments then leave the country and relinquish the services, I hear Somalia is nice, no taxes there.
You chose to stay and receive the protection of the state, if you did not want it then why stay? If you didn't know that your protection came with certain obligations then you are very very ignorant.
What he also overlooks is that the government does not tax everybody and not those on low or no earnings (like students) but still gives them full protection and use of facilities.
The arguments being presented here seem to be going in common threads, so I'll address them all here.
"Sometimes there is no choice"
Firstly, I'd like to point out the hypocrisy in the way you guys say I have the choice to move to Somalia but say you don't have the choice to work somewhere safe or work at all. Generally, I think as a general principle it's more moral to ask for less control so as to encourage competition and choice within the country than mandate it so there is only one choice within the country, and if you don't like it you can leave.
I'd also like to thank you for that graph because that demonstrates perfectly how polluted the atmosphere gets when government gets involved in the environment. As you should know, the industry is quite heavily regulated already and hasn't done a lot to stop pollution so far. If there was more consumer choice, your insurance could cover a lot more, including negotiating with pollutants so as to protect your area. Government is one of the biggest polluters of all, as China and Russia demonstrate, and the private enterprise system is one of the best ways to reduce pollution, as demonstrated by the clean river Thames in London WITHOUT regulation. The competition of resources allowed the industry to use cleaner and more sustainable resources like natural gas and oil. London is far less polluted than it was precisely because competition was encouraged, i.e. the government left well enough alone. Sure it's not perfect, there are still people who suffer from what it was back then, but on a long term basis, things get better!
http://www.news-star.com/opinions/lette … uce-deaths
The reason for this is that people treat their own private property better than shared property. Because they have an vested interest in keeping their stuff clean they make an effort to clean the area around them. It reminds me of what one of my teachers said to the class when he was complaining about how dirty the corridors were: "you wouldn't leave rubbish around in your own living room would you?". No you wouldn't, but because primary and secondary students don't pay for their own schooling they have no interest in keeping it clean, it's somebody else's problem. SOMEBODY ELSE'S PROBLEM is the great sickness that pervades all statist ideologies, whether they admit it or not.
In an environment where choice is encouraged, the competition for being known as the safest and most sustainable business is huge, especially these days. Do you really think that without government, protesters, unions, comparison websites and inspectors would just disappear? If anything the increased responsibility on the consumer demands more of these things, and one thing we know for sure is that the individual is in a much better position to decide what is best for them than any politician, who has his own self-interest to worry about it too. Someone will make it their self-interest to help you, that is unless the government does it for you, in that case they won't bother and we have to suffer the government doing a poor job.
I understand that is not intuitive to say 'regulation is a bad good idea', but if you take a deep breath and look at the facts, you'll see that consumers are a much better regulator than the government because they have a vested interest (also, for people accusing me of having an emotional reaction to arguments, you guys are getting very flustered by mine and it's clouding your vision, I'm not out to hurt anybody.) The consumer can completely voluntarily take their money out of businesses, stop working for businesses and stop buying their products whenever they want and however they want. How democratic is that?
"Tax is not theft because we're in a democracy"
However, it's not enough to throw the word 'democracy' around as if it proves we're living in a utopia. Let's actually have a look at the facts:
Less than half of the population vote
Less than half of the voters get who they want in power
0.0% of those voters agree 100% with what that 'representative' does
How in any way does that resemble a trade-off? I agree to pay taxes so the government can do exactly what I don't want them to do? Firstly, that's ridiculous. Second, I don't remember in my lifetime anybody asking me "would you like to be British Citizen?" and giving me a list of things they would give me in return for their money. No, what I get is that since I committed the sin of being born I am enslaved to a system where a good percentage of my property is stolen to fund social programs that I don't agree with, armies and bombs to blow up millions of brown people, pay for bureaucrats and politicians' bestiality porn, horse manure and gravel for their drives, the embargos and stealing of resources from foreign countries, the sterilisation of children, the indoctrination of children, the stealing of children, the abuse of children, and my very name is used as leverage in government swindling . Thanks for the services rendered!
And what do I do if I disagree? Well, once every 5 years I get a choice between 3 blokes to vote for, who all went to the same school, are all bought by the big banks, and all have exactly the same policies. Oh yeah, democracy, right . . . I really feel like I have the power to move mountains. Is this sarcasm coming across effectively enough?
Is it too much to ask for a little bit of voluntaryism? Can I not make a compromise and simply choose which services I want to pay for and use? Of course not, I'll get thrown in the brink. The very system itself is built on violence, and apparently this is the one thing we must all live by. Statists argue on and on about how exactly the system is run, and guess what, nothing gets done.
I know this is all coming across as juvenile anarchist whining, but at least it's not juvenile statist whining, and is actually consistent. At least Josak admits that tax is 'justifiable' force - most people won't even go far enough to admit that it is force.
"Why don't you just move to Somalia?"
Why don't you just move to North Korea if the state is such a saviour? That's a juvenile argument if I ever heard one.
I would argue that Somalia is not an anarchist country, but that would be missing the point so I won't get into it. The number one principle for me is non-violence which LEADS me to anarchism as the least violent social organisation. However, this does not exclude the chance that anarchism is always non-violent. That's obviously not true. You guys obviously believe the state is right, but hopefully don't deny that some states are tyrannical. I observe that the state is the biggest killer of the 20th century, and make the case that maybe the state isn't such a good idea after all, but apparently that idea is just outrageous. If there was a non-violent state solution then I'd be all for it.
I'm living in Britain, yeah, but I do not accept that packing up and leaving counts as a 'choice', that sounds like coercion. I 'woke up', as it were, at the end of my first year as a student, and frankly it's not economically viable to stop studying half way through and not get my qualification. If you're going to go take the idea to its fullest extent, yes I'm a hypocrite, but I am paying my share (though I'm not sure I'm getting value for money), and hopefully I'll be making up for it by dedicating my career to the cause of liberty. I will continue to 'take advantage' of the 'protections' I get without any choice, simply because there is no other choice, and at least Britain as some tiny semblance of liberty left in comparison to other countries. However, I don't believe it is hypocritical to be critical of the system I am living in. If there is no other choice it's a very legitimate complaint.
"You wouldn't be saying that if . . ."
I'm not allowed to have an opinion on anything at all unless I have experienced it first hand? If anything I'm doing it the right way because I am observing all the facts available and drawing my conclusions from that and in conjunction with my real life experiences and observations, rather than drawing it from reactionary rich-people hate. Yeah, it's horrible when people die in the workplace, for example, but it's not wise to immediately scream 'regulation!' despite evidence demonstrating that government enforcement does little to help. I know it's not fashionable to be against regulation, but sometimes you have to wonder why things become fashionable. Is it because it is genuinely popular or is someone with a vested interest trying to point everyone in a particular direction? It's so important not to get caught up in fervour when things go wrong. You have to consider: exactly how and why things went wrong, how common it is, who is hurt by it, and what are the long term affects of this and what you propose to do?
PROBLEM - REACTION - SOLUTION is the state's playbook
PROBLEM - Engineer an economic collapse by artificially creating bubbles through a central bank.
REACTION - When everything goes to pot, the people naturally scream "capitalism! greed! rich-people!"
SOLUTION - Propose that tax-payers money is used to bail out the banks, which further centralises the wealth, and propose heavy regulation so as to stunt competition to these big banks.
BINGO! The state has pleased both its boss (Wall Street) and the people in one fell swoop.
Anyway, I think I covered everything.
You have absolutely zero evidence to show any of your claims are fruitful (such as examples of successful non state entities) you claim that government is not the solution to pollution yet thus far it is the only known solution to have worked, I am currently in Australia and the factories and mines operating here are the cleanest in the world and still operate competively with China why? becuase government stepped in to prevent pollution, the Zink works not far from my Sisters house once polluted the river she lives on so severely that it was no longer safe to swim in for fear of consuming too many heavy metals, the produce of the zink works is pretty much exclusively sold overseas so there was no way for local consumers to affect their actions (not that boycotts have much history of success) with successful petitioning government stepped in and put regulations in place, now no longer do tons of heavy metals and toxins run down the river and into the ocean and not only can you swim in the river you can even eat the fish caught in it, the ONLY reason that occurred was because of government intervention, that is effectively the only way it could have been achieved, it is just a small example but it is an effective and representative one, the state is ideally the arm of the will of the people, and no it is never perfectly representative that is the nature of democracy, we work within the possible, in Australia it is compulsory to vote but I doubt you would support that measure but without the unifying factor of the state the people are powerless in the face of say a polluting or abusive corporation or in say the face of an invading army, we are defended by the state and that defense is only possible through taxation that is why anarchist societies always fail and collapse because they are defeated by groups capable of cooperation and unification of will.
I just showed you that the free-market solved pollution in London. Unfortunately I can not find any studies correlating the worldwide effectiveness in regulation, that does not include CO2 (I don't count CO2 because it can hardly be considered a pollutant). However, generally speaking countries that are richer, i.e. countries that have allowed the most personal and economic freedom so as to promote competition and abundance are the least pollutant. That includes countries like Honk Kong and Singapore, recent economic successes who have skyrocketed in air quality and quality of life in general. Countries on the other end are still developing countries with a lot of oil like Saudi Arabia and the UAE (also, the desert doesn't help) and economically stunted countries such as Mongolia and Pakistan. The United States is not great, but as we have seen, the increase in regulation has not improved matters.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/44781282/World_s … es?slide=8
You also fail to see the potential harm of the regulation bug - skip to around 8 minutes to see EPA tyranny
And again, government 'democracy' is a fallacy. The head of state has an unbelievable amount of power and has zero accountability to the public - home come the political system is the only contract in the world where one side are not obligated to follow the contract? If politics was voluntary, we should have fired Obama, Bush, Blair and Cameron for doing exactly the opposite of what they were elected for. They pass things without congress or parliamentary approval, and even if they do, everybody who disagrees with it is still bound by it. It's the farthest thing from the will of the people you could think of.
And government is definitely NOT the only group capable of cooperation. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Every time you open up a business that's an act of cooperation. Think of all the unions, charities, militias, communes that exist without government coercion. Any anarchistic society that doesn't cooperate is a dumb society - people naturally cooperate because it is in their own interest.
If government is the ONLY way a society can cooperate, why does it need to be enforced? Why not enforce all interactions and cooperations? Similarly, if government really is an arm of the will of the people, why does it need to be enforced? Cut out the middle man and just do it! It was such an evidently great way of doing things nobody would have a problem voluntarily pooling together their money. If it needs to be enforced there must be some reason why some people wouldn't want it to happen, or at least wouldn't want to give up their own property for it.
Innersmiff, I'm waiting for the evidence that factory deaths were already falling before health and safety legislation came about.
I'm also waiting for evidence that health and safety legislates against children running in the playground.
While you're at it, a bit of information on how one chose a safe place to work pre-health and safety when they were few and far between.
This quote stolen off another thread sums things up nicely I think.
'Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.'
I gave you the link about the factory deaths.
I didn't say there is legislation, but the health and safety bug has seeped into schooling where the school rules include no running in the fields etc.
I'm not saying it was easy to choose, much less through government suppression of technologies and industry, but freedom allows tenfold the amount of choice. The choice has slowly gotten better as my link demonstrates. Also look for Stossel on Reason.TV on Youtube. He provides many instances of anti-intuitive facts about regulation. Government legislates badly and we're stuck with it because businesses have neither the interest nor the obligation to make it better. They see that they're not breaking the law so they don't bother making anything better. Regulation is like putting a big line on development. For instance, who is to say that the free market could not have developed a safer and stronger seatbelt for cars? Seat belts are almost as dangerous as drink driving, there is definitely a consumer interest in keeping their children safe so businesses would be more than happy in pleasing them.
Socialism is the astounding belief that a few men men should be given 100% of the power with 0% of the risk and accountability and expect them to represent the greatest good for everyone. People have self-interest, and we have to make it in people's self interest to help people. Guess what? People's self interest is to help others because we need to be able to do that in order to be. Socialism is completely cynical because it argues that people need to be forced to function in society. You don't need to convince me to function in it, thanks. If I want to participate in the society I need to bring something to it in return, it's just natural. Societies are ever evolving and changing, and it's not always perfect, but look around you. We've been living in a culture of force for over 1000 years and what do you know, millions of people die every year through force! It's when societies cooperate through mutual interests that peace thrives.
So now you are suggesting that I should have gone and worked in America!
Innersmiff, I'm British, and you're British, American statistics are just about as relevant to me and you as Chinese or Outer Mongolian.
PS,that US site you posted was comparing deaths over about a sixty year period, well into the 1990s when health and safety regulation was already well established in the UK.
I don't know what you should have done, that's not my business, I'm just presenting you with the facts about the failure of regulation . . . as a general principle. I don't know why I need to defend my decision to talk about America all the time - half the people on here are from the states, and we're talking about general principles. Are you saying that since I don't live in the US I can never ever talk about it? Quite ridiculous.
And don't you think that is more to do with the blame culture that we have now? Nobody has accidents any more, somebody must always be to blame and somebody must pay!
CO2 can hardly be seen as a pollutant?
Innersmiff, I pointed out numerous instances where only government regulation (set in motion by private citizens...not the "desire to control everyone's lives") could affect change. The East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice and Pacoima Beautiful are two of these grassroots organizations.
And when the companies decide they want to avoid following the rules....it is government (on behalf of the people...not some nationalist socialist fantasy you create in your mind) that has the authority to put them in their place:
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/24 … s-20110624
But....there are still companies out there that think they can do whatever they wish....that they can lie and cheat...which ultimately costs people their lives:
http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci … -gas-sales
In Innersmiff's world, BP would continue doing whatever it wished....and there would be no counterweight to their power/influence because the people would have no means of defending themselves. That is what government is used for.
Some look at government (which is only a tool...like a car or a pipe wrench)
and see those who have abused their power... Government then becomes only something that abuses power..
But this is not true... Does power corrupt? Yes.. Is there any real way of stopping corrupt people and corrupt actions from making government look bad? No...these are aspects of humanity....and we are not going to be able to alter this. However, noble people also use government for the well-being of the populace. I can point to Civil Rights leaders past and present here in the U.S., I can highlight the organizations like those I mentioned earlier in this posting, and I can share about the local, state, and federal entities that have enabled California to lead the nation in terms of trying to create a cleaner environment for Americans across the country.
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclie … mp;bih=664
None of those links are really addressing the point I'm making. Yeah, the government sometimes deigns to give the public what it wants when it doesn't risk their Wall Street bosses' interests, but you haven't shown me why that would be impossible without government. Insurance, privately owned channels and trading routes, and generally giving the consumer more responsibility and choice would probably do this as well if not better than the government.
In Innersmiff's perfect world, BP would not exist, or it would at least not be as large, because there would be no government to subsidise and protect them. The reason they have got so massive is because the regulation that is put in stunts competition, and they are allowed to expand their monopoly. They would also not be living off government militarism, they would have to trade for their oil fair and square and improve their own standards to do it.
Take away government and the whole system changes because the whole system is built upon force. Government is not some benign institution that is corrupted by the corrupt, neither are businesses benign and corrupted by the government - they are both part of a fascistic system based on violence. Look at it, the system is DRIPPING in corruption. There is not an institution within it which has not been corrupted by self-interest in some way or another. We're trying to adapt to a system that is broken, when we should be tearing down the system and starting again. It's like using a panzer tank to take your kids to school. Government is just not [i]built[/i} for non-violence. Think about it, we haven't changed the basic structure of the state since the Roman times, and probably before that. We've only changed what we call it.
Oh and CO2 is not a pollutant. The environment loves CO2 - plants breathe it.
by uncorrectedvision 6 years ago
American liberals like to point to European as the great liberal success story. They especially love Sweden because they think Sweden is socialist and has always been socialist and always will be socialist. But is Swedish "socialism" really that much smarter than America's...
by ahorseback 2 years ago
Bill Ayers and wife .These are some of the people who have TAUGHT THE TEACHERS , these are just a couple of the people responsible for the socialist indoctrination of your children and grandchildren today . Why ?, because these are the kinds of teachers , and...
by SportsBetter 20 months ago
Is social security a socialist program?
by tinkerbell09 9 years ago
Do you think our social services groups are too nosy? Why or why not?The reason behind this question is that we have a lot of displace children from state to state (even continent to continent) and in the county I live in has the highest level of children being taken from the home. Most...
by TMMason 7 years ago
Oh My God!.. is about all I can say.-- Sex Change Operations Turn Little Girls into Boys: Indian Parents Think They’re Cheaper to Keep-- "In a stunning revelation reported in The Telegraph Monday, parents in India are allegedly paying £2,000 (around $3200) to have their young daughters...
by StripedCrunchy 6 years ago
Cubaâ��s totalitarian regime controls all aspects of life through the Communist Party (CP) and its affiliated mass organizations, the government bureaucracy and the Department of State Security. The latter is tasked with monitoring, infiltrating and tormenting the countryâ��s beleaguered...
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|