Previous 21 - 30 Next
Any system can be easily corrupted if We the People put too much trust in it. There is no system than can overcome public apathy or ignorance. When the people begin to care about the quality and content of their government, and take on the responsibility of constant vigilance to maintain it, then any system will work just fine.
The United States Army. The United States Navy. The United States Air Force. There has to be at least one more, but every one I think of is more of a hindrance than help either because of mission creep, obsolescence, or plain old corruption. Most suffer from all three, and many did so from their inception.
"It is indeed sad that America today is plagued, indeed threatened, by the very institution it invented to protect its own citizens." Ms. Parker, you disappoint me terribly. The federal government was created to do three jobs: Defend the United States against hostile incursions. Act as spokesman for the States in dealings with foreign powers. Arbitrate disputes between the States. That is it. Nothing more. The federal government was specifically designed to keep its grubby mitts off the personal affairs of individual citizens. Making citizens miserable with a lot of unnecessary interference is what the sovereign State governments are for. Read your constitution, and some supporting historical documents, then come back and explain how the federal government can manage private businesses and individual life choices from an armchair in Washington, and still call itself the United States of America.
The arbitrary fixed limit of 21 million bitcoins bothers me. A scarce resource is valuable. A finite resource eventually becomes so valuable that it is useless, and therefore without value. I do not know if the protocol permits fractional bitcoin transactions, but even if it does, the value of a bitcoin will necessarily balloon to the point that nobody can think in terms of the tiny fractions that would represent a purchase of a loaf of bread or a cheese sandwich. Wealth is constantly created. Currency is supposed to represent that wealth. If bitcoins cannot be created to represent new wealth, how will anyone ever be able to know the value of a bitcoin?
Incidentally, I don't expect Social Security to be eliminated in one swell foop, unless we insist on keeping it. In that case, Social Security will eventually collapse in one fell swoop by default. If we want any kind of control over the demise of Social Security, we need to take action to get rid of it now. I am just warning you here and now that that action is going to be EXTREMELY expensive one way or another, so we need to be prepared.
Starting in the middle, I am going to assume that everywhere you say "DoT" you actually mean "DoE", since I don't think you are discussing how the Department of Transportation controls schools. Other than that, you seem to be supporting my point about the negative effects of central DoE control very effectively. Federal money is all money taken from local people. If there is no DoE, and no funds for it to distribute, then local communities will have the funds to support the schools that they find most effective. Moving upward, you use personal anecdotal evidence to support my observation that housing paid for by the inhabitant is valued, and housing provided at no cost to the inhabitant is not. I must disagree with your assessment that more managers are needed, mostly because eviction, an important tool of rental property management, is not available to those managers. If you rent to a vandal, and can not evict that vandal, how are you going to "manage" the property successfully? Finally, addressing the beginning and end of your comment, the federal government is already in the business of charitable giving, and they are unutterably bad at it. A law-based organization must make rules to govern its giving, but no set of rules can possibly cover the particulars of ten million cases of individual need. Americans know need when they see it, and have proven time and again their willingness and ability to satisfy that need quickly and efficiently. They don't need government encouragement to focus their efforts on government-approved needs. Americans just need to be free to address the needs that come to their attention. What the federal government does now is just wrong.
Point for point: 1. Eliminate welfare programs entirely. State governments might not be as bad as the federal government at distributing largesse, but any government is a poor instrument for administering charity, and the donations will still be taken by force, not given voluntarily. 2. HUD projects and Section 8 housing get their reputations from a lack of respect for the property. If you pay for it, it means something to you. If it is given to you free, it is worth no more than you personally paid for it. See item 1 for the other reasons this is a bad idea. 3. With central control (Department of Education) there is little opportunity for local management of schools. The same rules are applied to all schools, but what works for one can not work for all. Education is a child's first experience with a merit based system, but central authorities treat the system as a repeatable process with predetermined results. Vouchers are a start, but the real problem is the central control that the DoE sees as their right because they are paying for the schools. 4. This is as good as it gets, I suppose, but leaves the question of how will we pay for those who do not opt out? The only other real alternative is to simply cancel the Social Security program, which will cause some chaos and suffering as SS recipients transition from dependence on government to dependence on friends and family. 5. See item 1. Charity should not be government business. Governments are terrible at that sort of thing.
Maybe the FBI should think things through before demanding to violate Americans' God-given rights.
Anybody who wants to replace Obamacare is no better than the scum who voted for it in the first place. Health insurance is not the government's job.
Leonard, there are some questions we do NOT want to have answered!
If I may direct your attention to the 2012 election, which took place after the disastrous natures of Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, Porkulus and Quatitative Easing were all clearly demonstrated to the American people, it seems apparent that the American voter is not the sharpest tool in the shed. In the most recent election, the appalling number of Democrats and their Republican collaborators who continue to infest Capitol Hill also fail to highlight the intelligence of the electorate. Baseless flattery might get certain politicians some short term gains in popularity, but what we really need is an improved grade of voter. In nature, when a population becomes too large and complacent, a drastic shortage causes a thinning of that population. It appears that Americans will have to wait for the forces of nature to overtake them before they start to apply some common sense to their choices in representation.
Previous 21 - 30 Next