PDA

View Full Version : Is There Anything Government Cannot Solve?



Ethereal
10-14-2017, 02:13 PM
Is there any problem or issue that Democrats don't think should be solved with more government?

Here is a list (not exhaustive) of things Democrats want government to address or resolve:



Healthcare
Gun crime
Energy
Education
Transportation
Infrastructure
Security
Housing
Agriculture
Discrimination
Land Management
Labor
Retirement


Seems like they want the government to regulate everything and anything. Is there an area of life they don't want the government to interfere with?

Chris
10-14-2017, 03:03 PM
Morality. It cannot make people moral. It can restrict choices but men must be free to choose to be moral.

The Xl
10-14-2017, 03:04 PM
They fuck up everything. Usually intentionally.

Tahuyaman
10-14-2017, 03:31 PM
Everything listed in the OP gets worse with more government involvement.

Tahuyaman
10-14-2017, 03:33 PM
They $#@! up everything. Usually intentionally.

Sometimes it is intentional. They use it as a reason to seize total control of something.

Chris
10-14-2017, 05:20 PM
They fuck up everything. Usually intentionally.

But with such good intentions!

resister
10-14-2017, 05:35 PM
But with such good intentions!
Paving material to hell!

Kalkin
10-14-2017, 05:43 PM
Is there any problem or issue that Democrats don't think should be solved with more government?

Here is a list (not exhaustive) of things Democrats want government to address or resolve:


Healthcare
Gun crime
Energy
Education
Transportation
Infrastructure
Security
Housing
Agriculture
Discrimination
Land Management
Labor
Retirement

Seems like they want the government to regulate everything and anything. Is there an area of life they don't want the government to interfere with?

Most of that list is stuff that parents are responsible for regarding their children.

Crepitus
10-14-2017, 06:02 PM
Morality. It cannot make people moral. It can restrict choices but men must be free to choose to be moral.

Which is exactly what the republicans want it to do oddly enough.

Chris
10-14-2017, 06:12 PM
Which is exactly what the republicans want it to do oddly enough.

Are you saying Democrats want to make people evil?

DGUtley
10-14-2017, 07:01 PM
Dear Ethereal — Please add: “Fix the Cleveland Browns” to your list. Maybe only the gubment can fix that.

20474

gamewell45
10-14-2017, 07:06 PM
Sometimes it is intentional. They use it as a reason to seize total control of something.
I think some of the regulatory agencies would not have been formed in the first place if the private sector and/or civilians acted responsibly. A good example would be the formation of OSHA; if the employers kept a safe environment in the first place, OSHA might have never been created since no one goes off to work to die or become seriously injured due to unsafe workplace. Since many business owners were unable to keep safe workplaces, the government had to get involved under pressure from the public who claimed it was unfair to work in a place that was unsafe.

The same with the department of environmental conservation; prior to their creation you had corporations dumping toxic chemicals into the water, ground and air. All of which we got to ingest with no idea we were slowly killing ourselves. Stories such as GE dumping PCB's into the Hudson River, the Love Canal in Buffalo that was so toxic they ended up condemning an entire section due to the high cancer rate or cities allowing anyone to dump chemicals into the ground in the city, town or village run dump, which then leached into the water supplies, thus ruining them long term. If businesses and people were more responsible, the chances are we might not have the government running things today.

The list goes on and on......

Crepitus
10-14-2017, 08:45 PM
Are you saying Democrats want to make people evil?

No. Are you?

Chris
10-14-2017, 09:07 PM
No. Are you?

I just figured since you were saying Reps try to force good on people, Dems, their political opposites, must try to force evil on people.

There are arguments for that.

For now I'll just add P. J. O'Rourke's old quip "The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it."

Crepitus
10-14-2017, 09:27 PM
I just figured since you were saying Reps try to force good on people, Dems, their political opposites, must try to force evil on people.

There are arguments for that.

For now I'll just add P. J. O'Rourke's old quip "The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it."

Many, if not most, of the morals the republicans have tried to legislate are not "good" by my definition.

Chris
10-14-2017, 09:29 PM
Many, if not most, of the morals the republicans have tried to legislate are not "good" by my definition.

My point was, if you recall, the government cannot force morality, however you might morally relativistically define it.

Crepitus
10-15-2017, 12:10 AM
My point was, if you recall, the government cannot force morality, however you might morally relativistically define it.

My point is that that is exactly what the republicans try to use the government for, to force their version of morality on the populace.

resister
10-15-2017, 12:25 AM
My point is that that is exactly what the republicans try to use the government for, to force their version of morality on the populace.lol, wonka wonka:rollseyes:

Crepitus
10-15-2017, 12:31 AM
lol, wonka wonka:rollseyes:

Still imitating me. Does it make you feel "cool"?

Tahuyaman
10-15-2017, 02:12 AM
I think some of the regulatory agencies would not have been formed in the first place if the private sector and/or civilians acted responsibly. A good example would be the formation of OSHA; if the employers kept a safe environment in the first place, OSHA might have never been created since no one goes off to work to die or become seriously injured due to unsafe workplace. Since many business owners were unable to keep safe workplaces, the government had to get involved under pressure from the public who claimed it was unfair to work in a place that was unsafe.

The same with the department of environmental conservation; prior to their creation you had corporations dumping toxic chemicals into the water, ground and air. All of which we got to ingest with no idea we were slowly killing ourselves. Stories such as GE dumping PCB's into the Hudson River, the Love Canal in Buffalo that was so toxic they ended up condemning an entire section due to the high cancer rate or cities allowing anyone to dump chemicals into the ground in the city, town or village run dump, which then leached into the water supplies, thus ruining them long term. If businesses and people were more responsible, the chances are we might not have the government running things today.

The list goes on and on......

Do you advocate more government control?

Kalkin
10-15-2017, 02:13 AM
Still imitating me. Does it make you feel "cool"?

Do you like the taste of your own medicine?

Tahuyaman
10-15-2017, 02:14 AM
My point is that that is exactly what the republicans try to use the government for, to force their version of morality on the populace. There's minimal difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Dr. Who
10-15-2017, 02:43 AM
My point was, if you recall, the government cannot force morality, however you might morally relativistically define it.
You cannot force morality, but you can make immoral acts illegal.

Dr. Who
10-15-2017, 02:45 AM
Do you advocate more government control?

Do you advocate less? Are you good with contaminated drinking water, for instance? How about industry filling the air with cancer causing pollutants?

gamewell45
10-15-2017, 09:20 AM
Do you advocate more government control?

Certainly nothing more then we have now, as long as the civilians don't continue to screw things up through irresponsibility.

Chris
10-15-2017, 09:20 AM
My point is that that is exactly what the republicans try to use the government for, to force their version of morality on the populace.

As do Democrats. Take redistribution of wealth, please.

https://i.snag.gy/xlfbEO.jpg


BTW, your point was a response to mine but is wholly unrelated.

Chris
10-15-2017, 09:22 AM
You cannot force morality, but you can make immoral acts illegal.

But that doesn't make people moral because you have taken their freedom to choose morally away.

barb012
10-15-2017, 10:26 AM
Morality is not the reason why government gets involved in any of those issues, it's about creating more revenue for the government, period.

Chris
10-15-2017, 10:35 AM
Morality is not the reason why government gets involved in any of those issues, it's about creating more revenue for the government, period.

If the government does no good then it should not engage in theft by taxation.

Tahuyaman
10-15-2017, 12:56 PM
Do you advocate less? Are you good with contaminated drinking water, for instance? How about industry filling the air with cancer causing pollutants?. Yes. I advocate less government control. I also advocate that people should stop using fear tactics to justify calling for more government.


Now answer the question. Do you advocate more uovernment control?

Captdon
10-15-2017, 01:20 PM
My point is that that is exactly what the republicans try to use the government for, to force their version of morality on the populace.

As have the Democrats. PC is their idea. Be whatever you want if they decide it's alright.

Dr. Who
10-15-2017, 01:28 PM
. Yes. I advocate less government control. I also advocate that people should stop using fear tactics to justify calling for more government.


Now answer the question. Do you advocate more uovernment control?
In some matters, yes. That doesn't mean that there are not other areas that might benefit from less.

Ethereal
10-15-2017, 01:54 PM
A good example would be the formation of OSHA...

That's actually a bad example:

https://danieljmitchell.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/work-deaths-pre-and-post-osha.jpg

Ethereal
10-15-2017, 01:55 PM
You cannot force morality, but you can make immoral acts illegal.

A profound observation.

Ethereal
10-15-2017, 01:56 PM
Do you advocate less? Are you good with contaminated drinking water, for instance? How about industry filling the air with cancer causing pollutants?
Are you good with a government powerful enough to destroy millions of lives and brainwash entire populations?

Dr. Who
10-15-2017, 02:13 PM
Are you good with a government powerful enough to destroy millions of lives and brainwash entire populations?
No.

Ethereal
10-15-2017, 02:20 PM
No.
Could have fooled me.

Tahuyaman
10-15-2017, 03:27 PM
In some matters, yes. That doesn't mean that there are not other areas that might benefit from less.

Thats side-stepping the question.

gamewell45
10-15-2017, 04:29 PM
That's actually a bad example:

https://danieljmitchell.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/work-deaths-pre-and-post-osha.jpg
I don't know, seems to me that the death rates have continued to shrink since OSHA's creation.

Dr. Who
10-15-2017, 05:19 PM
Thats side-stepping the question.

If I think that more regulation of weapons would be prudent, that doesn't mean that I agree with ridiculous legislation such as Michigan's law limiting what kind of sex is lawful between consenting adults or Montana's proposed ban on yoga pants, Alabama's ban on sex toys or those states that prohibit the sale of alcohol on Sunday's. Nor am I in favor of laws that prohibit people from giving food to the homeless or cities trying to regulate what people are allowed to eat.

MisterVeritis
10-15-2017, 05:38 PM
I think some of the regulatory agencies would not have been formed in the first place if the private sector and/or civilians acted responsibly. A good example would be the formation of OSHA; if the employers kept a safe environment in the first place, OSHA might have never been created since no one goes off to work to die or become seriously injured due to unsafe workplace. Since many business owners were unable to keep safe workplaces, the government had to get involved under pressure from the public who claimed it was unfair to work in a place that was unsafe.

The same with the department of environmental conservation; prior to their creation you had corporations dumping toxic chemicals into the water, ground and air. All of which we got to ingest with no idea we were slowly killing ourselves. Stories such as GE dumping PCB's into the Hudson River, the Love Canal in Buffalo that was so toxic they ended up condemning an entire section due to the high cancer rate or cities allowing anyone to dump chemicals into the ground in the city, town or village run dump, which then leached into the water supplies, thus ruining them long term. If businesses and people were more responsible, the chances are we might not have the government running things today.

The list goes on and on......
And just think of it, we have nearly 500 regulatory agencies today all unconstitutional (with about a dozen exceptions) churning out unconstitutional laws they call regulations. Most laws today are written by Executive branch agencies and are judged by executive class judges within the agencies. This is what tyranny looks like.

Tahuyaman
10-15-2017, 08:04 PM
If I think that more regulation of weapons would be prudent, that doesn't mean that I agree with ridiculous legislation such as Michigan's law limiting what kind of sex is lawful between consenting adults or Montana's proposed ban on yoga pants, Alabama's ban on sex toys or those states that prohibit the sale of alcohol on Sunday's. Nor am I in favor of laws that prohibit people from giving food to the homeless or cities trying to regulate what people are allowed to eat.

I believe the less laws we have, the better. I can't of one area where we are under regulated.

Adelaide
10-15-2017, 09:07 PM
20506


In all seriousness, there are a lot of things that government have proven that they can't solve. They are not the answer for most things, even if they try to be or one group wants them to be.

donttread
10-16-2017, 08:56 AM
Is there any problem or issue that Democrats don't think should be solved with more government?

Here is a list (not exhaustive) of things Democrats want government to address or resolve:


Healthcare
Gun crime
Energy
Education
Transportation
Infrastructure
Security
Housing
Agriculture
Discrimination
Land Management
Labor
Retirement

Seems like they want the government to regulate everything and anything. Is there an area of life they don't want the government to interfere with?


I see very little that big government has solved as evidenced by the same issues popping up election cycle after election cycle either unchanged or worse that they were last time.

ripmeister
10-16-2017, 12:52 PM
Regarding the original question I'm surprised that no one has brought up Democrats not wanting government to be involved with a womans uterus.

donttread
10-16-2017, 03:51 PM
Regarding the original question I'm surprised that no one has brought up Democrats not wanting government to be involved with a womans uterus.


Wow, there is one thing they don't want government invovled in. Well except for the medical bills of course.

Chris
10-16-2017, 04:04 PM
Regarding the original question I'm surprised that no one has brought up Democrats not wanting government to be involved with a womans uterus.

An idea so good they had to make it mandatory.

Ethereal
10-16-2017, 09:11 PM
I don't know, seems to me that the death rates have continued to shrink since OSHA's creation.
They were already shrinking before OSHA. Contrary to what some might think, firms have an incentive to improve workplace safety independent of government regulations.

gamewell45
10-16-2017, 09:52 PM
They were already shrinking before OSHA. Contrary to what some might think, firms have an incentive to improve workplace safety independent of government regulations.

What is the incentive?

Ethereal
10-17-2017, 01:31 PM
What is the incentive?
Labor is a valuable and scarce resource that firms must compete over. That means they must provide reasonably safe working conditions apart from things like wages. And that is why the evidence clearly shows that workplace fatalities were decreasing long before OSHA came into existence. There is also the fact that not every business owner is a greedy bastard who cares nothing for their fellow man. Plenty of them are driven by ethics as well as profits.