[Veloce]

(12-11-2014 04:14 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 03:58 PM)Veloce Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 01:50 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

One of the more depressing features of the manosphere is its conflation of right-wing, big business talking points with what is supposedly "masculine" and "good."

Big business, right-wing propaganda has convinced most young guys that any type of progressive, enlightened legislation is somehow unconstitutional, pussified, or conspiratorial.

It's almost as if these guys want to turn back to clock to what America was like in the early 1900s, when you had:

* Industrialized slave labor with no minimum wages
* Child labor
* No social security or workmen's compensation
* Total domination of the country by a handful of big corporations
* No health care
* Exploitation of natural resources and lands by corporations for their own profit.
* Unregulated pollution
* No labeling of food products or safety requirements

And it just goes on and on.

If it had not been for Teddy Roosevelt, none of the things that you guys take for granted would be here. Same thing for Franklin Roosevelt.

And back in the early 1900s, the big money interests made the same threadbare arguments they make today: "It's unconstitutional!" or "It's socialism"! or "It's the end of life as we know it!"

Teddy Roosevelt had no patience for such talk. The constitution was created for the people, not the other way around. Fundamental fairness and justice is what should be the proper concern of the government. The "free market" is mostly a sham where the deck is stacked against the little guy. Without a strong government to keep business greed in check, we would have revolutions and social disorder.

Government has a minimum responsibility to provide for the welfare and health of its citizens. It's that simple.

I'm reminded of the forum brouhaha over the Berkeley sugar tax.

Okay, Berkeley might be a hotbed of wackjob policies that are largely ineffective. Forget Berkeley. Let's make this a national issue.

The fact remains, a sugar tax would be a huge blessing in this country for the same reason that GMO foods should be labelled and hydrogenated fats should be downright outlawed.

The argument, "I want less government in my life, not more." is a weak copout and ignores the duty of why we have government in the first place. You don't want government? Okay, turn back the clock 2500 years and go be a slave under some Middle Eastern despot. Well structured government, like that of the Roman Empire in its glory days, gave ordinary plebs (citizens) a pretty cushy life, including a lot of land and a loud voice in government proceedings. For hundreds of years, Romans were proud to be Romans.

Can you say the same thing about America?

The answer isn't to cry for less government, the answer is to hold our government accountable, but that ship has sailed. It seems the only option is to watch this mega corporation complex destroy the whole thing and wait to rebuild it. Like Rome, the greed and excess of the elites will catch up and cause the entire thing to crumble.

Not even touching the GMO food stuff, but I will say this: I think you are misrepresenting the views of those who desire small government. They don't want anarchy. They just want less taxation, less spending, and a minimal government that can take care of the national defense and other constitutional responsibilities. Most of all, they don't want some asshole politician owned by special interests telling them how to live their lives and making personal choices for them. Whether it's liquor taxes, prohibiton, gun control, or sugar taxes. This is an American tradition as old as the country is. The fact that neither of the major political parties caters to them means nothing. It is still what they want and believe is best.

To them the answer is to demand less government, precisely because holding big government accountable is just about impossible. Especially when big government buys the votes of large swathes of the population.

So the argument is that a smaller government is less dangerous to liberty than a larger one. I would say that's generally true.

If you're really interested in less taxation and less spending, I find it ironic that you say "minimal government that can take care of the national defense".



About HALF of your taxes go to military spending in one way or another. Do we really need 32 F-35s at $300+million each? If you want to look at "big government", start with the military contracts with Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman.