Tyee: Wendy's Chili: If you wingnuts think government is so bad, why the fark are so many of you in it?

The only reason I would get into government is to make it smaller, cheaper and to have much less responsibilities. I wonder if I'm a wingnut?

No you wouldn't. nobody does. They get in and the power eats their souls.

That's why there's now decent highways in the states.

depmode98: Hideously Gigantic Smurf: Ah yes, remember how even more people started dying of food poisoning once the FDA was established?


No...

but I remember how people used to sell cocaine and sugar as medications against everything from fatigue to cancer before the FDA was established.

To be fair, both sugar and cocaine are an effective, albeit short-lived, remedy for fatigue.

depmode98: Hideously Gigantic Smurf: Ah yes, remember how even more people started dying of food poisoning once the FDA was established?


No...

but I remember how people used to sell cocaine and sugar as medications against everything from fatigue to cancer before the FDA was established.

I was being facetious.

But does anyone else realize that the entire sentiment behind this article can be boiled down to "Why bother trying to help ourselves since we're probably going to screw up anyway"?

When I was a kid we had a name for that sort of thing, we used to call it...

BEING A pharkIN' LOSER!!!

Phil Moskowitz: That's why there's now decent highways in the states.

I know people hate to admit it, and it is a total sin to the know-nothing righties, but government has improved our lives drastically. I know, I know, wahtever. Facts is facts.

I came here for the manbearpig pictures and was sorely disappointed.

/FIXED!

Hideously Gigantic Smurf: I was being facetious.

Oh, sorry. there are people on fark who would say that with a completely straight face and mean it, so I hope you understand my confusion.

RussianPooper: Weaver95: And government has no business getting involved in health care or someone's retirement planning.

So you are prepared to live in a country filled with sick people dying in the streets?

In the middle of the street blocking traffic, or on the side where you can drive around them?

PascalsGhost: No you wouldn't. nobody does. They get in and the power eats their souls.

Well, I certainly wouldn't want my soul eaten.
Maybe someone someday will get in there and feel the power of taking power away from others, that would be good.

And another thing...

We're hesitant to use our government to provide aid for our own citizens because we're afraid of failure?

Gee, I can't help but wonder just where the fark all this "prudence" was when we had military experts warning us that going to war with Iraq was a bad idea!

Whenever there's a problem, Americans scream for government help. But government invariably doesn't fix it and in fact makes it worse.

I don't care who you are, the inclusion of the word "invariably" in that sentence makes it so obviously false you should want to slap subby in the face and walk away right there, as he is clearly an oversimplifying moron who fancies himself a political realist.

I would disagree that government makes things worse in every case. At least government allows for a degree of accountability that the private sector can never match. True hell is a world where companies like Halliburton fix your potholes and run your local police force. Not to mention monitoring your air, water and food for poison.

Hideously Gigantic Smurf: "Why bother trying to help ourselves since we're probably going to screw up anyway"?

The problem is they aren't looking to much to help themselves as they are looking for the government to help or fix the problem.

Tyee: PascalsGhost: No you wouldn't. nobody does. They get in and the power eats their souls.

Well, I certainly wouldn't want my soul eaten.
Maybe someone someday will get in there and feel the power of taking power away from others, that would be good.

Never happen. Human nature. Anybody who wants to put their families through the bullshiat to hold office is a fundamentally flawed person. A person who needs power more than anything. As soon as I see somebody decide to run for President, they are already not fit to lead. McCain had all the character in the world, and now politics makes him say what politics makes him say. He is a worthless human being. All because fo politics.

It's all about who runs government. Compare Bush and Clinton, for example. It's a no brainer.

I post this whenever a thread like this comes up. Just to clarify, i did not write this, though I wish i had.

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.
All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.
Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor. Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune. It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression. Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that his in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university. Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads. He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification. He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to. Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

Tyee: The problem is they aren't looking to much to help themselves as they are looking for the government to help or fix the problem.

Now listen to me very carefully...

We... Are... The... Government.

"Invariably" is kind of a strong word. If government didn't generally get things done in a way (albeit probably not the best way, but nonetheless an acceptable way), then we'd have switched to a form of government that was good at getting things done, like totalitarian dictatorship. It's a balance between individuals being able to do their stuff and governments being able to do their stuff, and if you don't like that the US tends to favor the former there are loads of other countries to which you can move (because that's unlikely to change).

albo: Howie Spankowitz: mean, it's not like the Food Stamp Act, co-authored by that big-government, pinko commie Bob Dole and George McGovrn, eliminated hunger as a cause of death in the United States

and created a whole new parallel payment system for crack! it's a free-market miracle

Yes, the only people who use food stamps are crackheads abusing the system. We should eliminate the program. Well played. I concede.

But lets be careful not to touch the agricultural subsidies. Giving food to poor people is socialism. Giving money to ADM and Monsanto is capitalism.

Because we're humans, not robots (except for Al Gore)

Actually, robots have better facial expressions.

Gore is more like Clutch Cargo,



only less animated.

Crosshair: anal brazil men: An interesting idea, but I don't think constituents would take too kindly to subtle manipulation.

Do you look at any advertisements, watch TV, read the newspaper? We are subject to similar "subtle manipulation" every day.

I wouldn't say it's subtle at all.

Example: riht-wing pundit. Count on him to include the word "problem" and the Democrat du jour as close together as often as possible.

Google search for "problem with Obama" proves the hypothesis. People say there's a problem with his Veep vetter, which is true. There is, he took a sweet deal on his mortgage, so he had to go. End of problem. But there are the subjective 'problems' (his message, his vision) and the 'I'm not racist but ...problems' (his color, him). Not problems at all. But they can be written as problems, and the word 'problem' can be inserted frequently, to make people associate his name with a problem.

Framing. Marvelous tactic. And it only truly works on the weak-willed...

KaponoFor3: Sybarite: You'd have to be a monumental idiot not to realize that gaining weight with hbp is likely to kill you.

And yet, some people still do it.

Newsflash: some people are idiots. I'm no politician, so I can say that without fear of recrimination. Some people are just complete morons.

Wendy's Chili: Blah, blah, blah...

If you wingnuts think government is so bad large, why the fark are so many of you in it?

ftfy

MPAVictoria: I post this whenever a thread like this comes up. Just to clarify, i did not write this, though I wish i had.

[pile of crap]

Please give it up. That entire thing is non-sense.

Tyee: Hideously Gigantic Smurf: "Why bother trying to help ourselves since we're probably going to screw up anyway"?

The problem is they aren't looking to much to help themselves as they are looking for the government to help or fix the problem.

That's not really what HGS's point was. The article was basically suggesting the invention of safety equipment (like airbags) was bad because it encouraged more risky behavior that the safety equipment was designed to help prevent. Which, of course, ignores that there might be a benefit to the risky behavior that can be more safely be taken advantage of because of the advance of the safety technology.

Crosshair: Very good points, though this isn't exactly new thinking.

This book is a good read. Don't agree with all of it, but it does bring up many valid criticisms of FDR and the path government has taken since then.

The problem is that anarchy is just as bad or worse. One thing history has shown us repeatedly as well is that free markets aren't free for too long.

Has the writer ridden the moon worm? Didn't think so! Fark you Shankar!

Crosshair
Very good points, though this isn't exactly new thinking.

This book is a good read. Don't agree with all of it, but it does bring up many valid criticisms of FDR and the path government has taken since then.

Here are a few of the other things those dirty no-good liberals have spent our tax money on, starting with FDR:

I thought that liberals were all touchy-feely enviromental. How many snaildarters did they kill to make this monstrosity?


Can't this uppity black girl run a lemonade stand and raise enough money to hire her OWN escorts to school? Proof that blacks hate free enterprise and want to live off the government aid.

Korag_The_Nasty: Here are a few of the other things those dirty no-good liberals have spent our tax money on, starting with FDR

Right, because if you're not a liberal, you're a racist and you're against infrastructure development.

tgregory: "In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." Ben Franklin

mediaho: Weaver95: And government has no business getting involved in health care or someone's retirement planning.

Our government has business doing whatever we vote for them to do.

Exactly. That's why we never bothered explicitly enumerating the powers of government or defining a set of basic rights. Majority rules, end of story. As long as they keep getting elected, I don't see any problem with our politicians persecuting their opponents, or quietly snuffing out dissent with secret hit squads. If we vote to criminalize being Hispanic or ban orange t-shirts, the government should just do it, by gum!

/Our Constitution.
//Read it.

Warrantless witetapping is small government because we don't have bloated government checking to make sure such wiretaps are are wiretapping the right people and being uses in ethical ways.

Indefinite detention is small government because we don't have pesky government officials checking to make sure the people being detained are actually guilty of something.

Executive privilege is small government because we don't have pesky government intervention making sure the executive branch is accountable for their actions.

All of these cases are examples of small government because they concentrate more power in the hands of fewer people. That's good, right?

Atillathepun: All of these cases are examples of small government because they concentrate more power in the hands of fewer people. That's good, right?

You've pinned down the inherent hypocrisy of modern conservatism. They favor "limited" government that is smaller in size while being bigger in scope. To truly reduce the size and scope of government, you might have to do something sensible. Like stop arresting and incarcerating every pothead you come across. Or stop running large, clandestine programs for monitoring the protected speech of citizens.

Vacaboi: Exactly. That's why we never bothered explicitly enumerating the powers of government or defining a set of basic rights. Majority rules, end of story. As long as they keep getting elected, I don't see any problem with our politicians persecuting their opponents, or quietly snuffing out dissent with secret hit squads. If we vote to criminalize being Hispanic or ban orange t-shirts, the government should just do it, by gum!

/Our Constitution.
//Read it.

You know, after I posted that, I thought, "Should I have added 'within Constitutional boundaries?'" but thought people* were smart enough to figure that out.

*not including Ron Paulites who don't think the Fed should be doing anything they weren't doing in the late 18th century.

If people believe government is the problem, let's put it to the test: military funding is now voluntary, and the force will be comprised entirely of volunteers who all get a small stipend for their effort.

I'm sure our best and brightest would be content to protect us out of the goodness of the hearts. And we can all pass a second, red white and blue collection plate around on Sundays to pay for it.

That's why FDR just made the Great Depression even greater, and those idiots elected him to 4 terms! We haven't had positive economic growth since 1929. Thanks, New Deal! Give us back Herbert Hoover!

And don't get me started on the Interstate Highway System...just a lot of muddy 1.5 lane dirt roads that we spent Eleventy Kajillion Dollars on. They even tore up the alternate routes so we had to use these "interstates." That also made the problem worse, as the government invariably does.

Oh, and Medicare - old people are dying in the streets because they can't see a doctor - it's in doctors' best interest to avoid the elderly at all costs! Same thing with Social Security - they're having to eat dog food (though dog food costs more than cheap human food...huh). Should have seen that coming, seeing as how the government invariably makes every problem worse when they try to solve it.

You can't get electricity once you step outside city limits! Rural Electrification my ass.

The FDA - thousands of people drop dead every day from contaminated food - the gov't actually ADDS contaminants! That can't be helping!

And so on.

/After Pearl Harbor, the gov't sent the armed forces in the wrong direction let the Japanese take over! FDR again!

albo: Cagey B: Fascinating.

*sigh*
did you arch your eyebrows as well?

all of us big submitters get headline hate. it's part of the deal. check out 40below's list of greatest hits in his profile. i should start documenting mine

Yeah, deliberately misleading headlines are part of the price you pay on Fark. Then you biatch about people responding to your headline rather than TFA...even though you essentially made the first trolling post with your submission. People do feed trolls, even though we're not supposed to. And we fed you quite a bit.

Hideously Gigantic Smurf: Tyee: The problem is they aren't looking to much to help themselves as they are looking for the government to help or fix the problem.

Now listen to me very carefully...

We... Are... The... Government.

The map is not the territory. The government is a representation of the people, but that representation does not have to be a perfect reflection of the people -- one can, for example, hate the government of Zimbabwe without hating the people of Zimbabwe.

In fact, a great deal of the anger is the extent to which government doesn't accurately represent us -- probably most of us would never have invaded Iraq if presented with the exact same information as George Bush, and the difference between our wishes and what was done in our name is making the Republican "map" of government a lot less popular.

Obdicut: Government can perform well when adequately restrained, transparent, and held to accountable goals by an involved populace. And sometimes, just sometimes, you get actual inspired leaders.

Yeah ... that's just not good enough, but you're 25% right.

"Transparency" isn't a solution - it doesn't prove corruption, it only provides "creative accounting" opportunities. Besides, when so much can be classified so easily, all the state has to do is invoke national security, and no further explanation is necessary. To even explain why something affects national security is a breach of national security, so you just have to take it on faith that the government knows what it's doing and is doing things right.

"Accountability" isn't a solution if there's no real mechanism by which the corrupt can be booted out. Voting isn't effective because the only candidates that anyone pays attention to are the major party idiots that keep making the same mistakes. The GAO (Govt Accountability Office) is an annoyance to Congress and the President unless someone needs some quick data so use in sponsoring a bill. Nothing less than restructuring the Justice Department as an agency devoted mostly to investigating politicians an lobbyists would begin to make our government accountable.

"Inspired leaders" aren't a solution. Principled leaders are, particularly those that are principled enough to not only set strict boundaries but vigilantly maintain them. Currently, the government is nothing more than a club for men and women who can only gain what they want by wielding the force of law against others.

"Restraint" is the key, though, and it begins with people - individuals in part time jobs all the way up to corporate executives - saying "you can't do that, it violates my rights" so much that the state is effectively impotent in anything it decides to do. When Americans roll over for big government, nothing can stop them; when Americans stand up for themselves, the likelihood of beating the state rises.

mediaho --
After the rulings in Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzales v. Raich, where complete personal, private non-economic activity can be regulated under interstate commerce regulatory powers... what are those limits?

Korovyov: mediaho --
After the rulings in Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzales v. Raich, where complete personal, private non-economic activity can be regulated under interstate commerce regulatory powers... what are those limits?

Are you asking what they are or what they should be?

Hideously Gigantic Smurf: Now listen to me very carefully...

We... Are... The... Government.

That bromide gets used a lot, but it's always used in the wrong context.

The common belief is that when We the People want something, We the People get what we want. We're a democracy, no? If most people want something, then it must be a great idea, right?

Wrong.

Self-government isn't so much about independence from Britain as it is you - you, the individual you - governing yourself. The more you take responsibility for yourself and your future, the less you rely on others to do it for you ... and the less demand there is for the government to violate everyone's rights so that you, or a small group of people, get what they want.

America isn't a "democracy"- it's a Republic that uses democratic processes in very limited capacities - election of leaders, and the occasional local referendum. Huge, huge difference there, and not only to We the People need to understand the difference, and why this form is better, but so does out government.

When We the People improve, They the Government will improve. We need to know our rights, and most importantly, we need to defend them even when state solutions to problems are attractive, or the cost seemingly negligible.

mediaho --
'What they are' seems to be more relevant, particularly since Gonzales v. Raich wasn't that long ago and seems unlikely to be overturned for a while.

Korovyov: mediaho --
'What they are' seems to be more relevant, particularly since Gonzales v. Raich wasn't that long ago and seems unlikely to be overturned for a while.

It would seem they are pretty much unlimited, save for anything regarding firearms (US v. Lopez). However, I'm with the dissenters on the two cases you mentioned. Interstate Commerce is an abomination but one that happened generations before I was born.

RussianPooper: So you are prepared to live in a country filled with sick people dying in the streets?

Why is this always the first reaction? "If the state doesn't regulate it, people will die!"

Pre-Capitalism
Religoius dogma ruled. Scintific thought crushed. Medical treatments barbaric and fatal.

And people died in the streets.

Capitalism
Incentivized scientific research. Competition. Affordable medication.

And people ... lived longer, were healthier, smarter, had more energy, larger families, produced more wealth, etc. etc.

Post-Capitalism
Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid crises. Counterproductive government price controls. Long-term worries. Half of federal expenditures on medical care and retirement, and a tidal wave looming. Increasing regulation on health care and pharmaceutical industries. Crushing taxes on corporations and individuals. Two Presidential candidates promising massive expansion in different areas of government run health care.

And people can't afford basic health care, afford insurance, or even buy discount medication from another country. Doctors and nurses reporting declining morale, and leaving the profession in droves. General practitioners are becoming "not my problem" specialists.

- - -

This isn't a "conservative" or "libertarian" "opinion"; this is undeniable causality of Newtonian magnitude. If you want to avoid a situation where people are dying in the streets, set the health care industry (yes, industry) free.

I missed this, and so many people are so wrong.

Atillathepun: Warrantless witetapping is small government because we don't have bloated government checking to make sure such wiretaps are are wiretapping the right people and being uses in ethical ways.

Indefinite detention is small government because we don't have pesky government officials checking to make sure the people being detained are actually guilty of something.

Executive privilege is small government because we don't have pesky government intervention making sure the executive branch is accountable for their actions.

All of these cases are examples of small government because they concentrate more power in the hands of fewer people. That's good, right?

Of course Stalin was unable to do those things because his bureaucrats told him not to do it. Oh wait, anyone that disagreed with Stalin was executed or thrown in the gulags.