[Yega1979]

[maxiep]

That's an interesting and striking quote. I don't believe things are as linear as that statement suggests, but I do believe we're in danger of losing the thing that makes us great--the spirit of rugged individualism and innovation. The more we look to the government to solve our problems, the more we enslave ourselves.

[blazerboy30]

Originally Posted by Yega1979

I understand most of those steps, but I don't buy the "liberty to abundance" step. That one is a reach to make the nice little circle seem to work, but it doesn't.

[blazerboy30]

Originally Posted by maxiep

That's an interesting and striking quote. I don't believe things are as linear as that statement suggests, but I do believe we're in danger of losing the thing that makes us great--the spirit of rugged individualism and innovation. The more we look to the government to solve our problems, the more we enslave ourselves.

Agreed 100%.

[barfo]

Originally Posted by maxiep

That's an interesting and striking quote. I don't believe things are as linear as that statement suggests, but I do believe we're in danger of losing the thing that makes us great--the spirit of rugged individualism and innovation. The more we look to the government to solve our problems, the more we enslave ourselves.

I disagree, philosophically, with your conclusion. Government is just us, "We the people". So your statement is really "The more we look to ourselves to solve our problems, the more we enslave ourselves". Well, that's true in a sense I suppose.

Obviously there are bureaucracy issues with any large organization of people, and smaller units can do some things more efficiently than larger groups. But the reverse is also true.

barfo

[Dan]

The "we look to the government to solve our problems" is an anecdotal "wag the dog" issue.

The ones that look to the government to solve their problems, do their things for them is big businesses, with their tax cuts and $$ breaks, not Joe America and Jane Six Pack.

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by barfo

I disagree, philosophically, with your conclusion. Government is just us, "We the people". So your statement is really "The more we look to ourselves to solve our problems, the more we enslave ourselves". Well, that's true in a sense I suppose.

Obviously there are bureaucracy issues with any large organization of people, and smaller units can do some things more efficiently than larger groups. But the reverse is also true.

barfo

And I disagree, philosopically, with yours. It should be "We The People", but it stopped being that a long time ago. It's now "We Know What's Better For The People Than The People Do".

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by Hap

The "we look to the government to solve our problems" is an anecdotal "wag the dog" issue.

The ones that look to the government to solve their problems, do their things for them is big businesses, with their tax cuts and $$ breaks, not Joe America and Jane Six Pack.

Not at all. More and more we have expanded for us by the elected officials we elect to expand the actual meaning of what government is--more "life" at the expense of "liberty" and the "persuit of happiness". If you can't see the encroaching nanny state, then you're just not looking hard enough.

As for those big companies, government often creates the problems they lobby to solve in the first place.

[barfo]

Originally Posted by maxiep

And I disagree, philosopically, with yours.

And I am not at all surprised to hear that.

It should be "We The People", but it stopped being that a long time ago. It's now "We Know What's Better For The People Than The People Do".

In many ways, you are right about that. However, I think we can make it better. Yes, we can.

barfo

[Hector]

There are several powerful components of the superstructure--government, big business, religion, media. Why is it bad to have one of those solve problems but not the others? Why shrink only one's power? If one shrinks, do the others expand to fill the power vacuum created?

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by Hector

There are several powerful components of the superstructure--government, big business, religion, media. Why is it bad to have one of those solve problems but not the others? Why shrink only one's power? If one shrinks, do the others expand to fill the power vacuum created?

You don't include the most powerful component of this supposed "superstructure": the individual.

We vote for how big our government is to become

We control whether or not big business exists by starting our own companies

We control how much influence religion has over our lives

We decide whether or not to believe what the media reports.

Where's Ayn Rand when you need her?

[hoojacks]

Originally Posted by maxiep

You don't include the most powerful component of this supposed "superstructure": the individual.

Which is becoming increasingly irrelevant to those in power and possessing plans to stay in power. In my opinion.

We vote for how big our government is to become

I would disagree. We don't vote, our representatives vote. And while we can wax poetic about representative government, it's still not We the People changing the government, it's the elites.

We control whether or not big business exists by starting our own companies

I would disagree. You have just worded this poorly, but as you said it you're implying that the individual can determine whether or not big business exists by starting small businesses. That's simply not the case. If what you were saying is that you can use the competition to reduce the profits of major companies by being innovative and making a better mousetrap, I would disagree on how much of a reality that actually is anymore. If we're speaking in terms of big business in general, the chance I have of making any sort of profit margin dent in any major corporation is almost zero. I can't take down Microsoft by starting my own software company. I can add another small business into the world, but the most likely result with me attempting to compete with them is either bankruptcy or (if I do well enough to pose a threat) being bought out.

But the theory I agree with. I just think it's becoming less and less applicable.

We control how much influence religion has over our lives

Aside from scattered exceptions from the idea of separation of church and state, I would agree with this. I've gotten pretty good at ignoring religious blah blah blah. God bless America

We decide whether or not to believe what the media reports.

Many psychologists and mass media analysts might disagree with you. But you have the right to choose whether you believe them or not, of course.

Where's Ayn Rand when you need her?

Dead, I hope. (just kidding... kind of.)

[Yega1979]

Is our government working for us? Hmm...let me see...let's take a look at their most recent activity:

1. H.CON.RES.308 : Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the National Peace Officers' Memorial Service.

4. S.CON.RES.72 : A concurrent resolution supporting the goals and ideals of the International Year of Sanitation.

7. S.RES.555 : A resolution recognizing the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Congressional Club.

This is the kind of typical **** both the senate and the house spend most days voting on.

Most of the major pieces of legislation are actually written by lobbiests, for the benefit of industry. The Federal Reserve act was written BY BANKERS, they met in secret on Jekyll Island to formulate the bill that would benefit them, not the American public. I know many of you will label this as a "conspiracy theory" without actually checking the facts to see that this is true.

There is a huge power structure in this country that dwarfs our federal government. Congress is nothing, they are pathetic. Presidents who won't play puppet, at least to some degree, are assasinated.