Reduce the cabinet to the Departments of Defense, State, Treasury, and Justice. Those were the original four and everything else that has been added since has been a pretense for expanding the power of the Federal Government in a way that wasn't originally intended.

Worldwide, I think as centuries go on (if the world hasn't nuked itself by then) I unfortunately see a continued shift toward statist and socialist platforms, as opposed the other direction. This is assuming the world's population continues to grow at an alarming rate and is concentrated in the poorest countries. In fact, I'm surprised the world isn't more "left" than it already is. Getting something for nothing simply appeals to more people than self-reliance and hard work.

As a 'populist' politician, if you can manage to convince a simple majority of the population (i.e. The Victim, the Entitled, the Oppressed, the 'Working Class', etc.) that the minority of the population (i.e. The 'Man', the 'rich', bourgeoisie, etc.) is screwing them over, and that majority deserve such-and-such pieces of the pie, you're already on your way. And this doesn't seem that difficult to do.

Even the terms themselves seem like Socialism (or Progressive) would have an advertising and marketing edge, as ironic as that sounds. Socialism has the warm, fuzzy "social" in the term. I mean, who doesn't like to be social? Whereas capitalism has this vague reference to cold, hard "capital". i.e. perception of Old Gorden Gekko type guys with pinstripe suits are the ones engaging in capital everyday.

That said, though I lean in a libertarian direction, I'm still nowhere near the pure libertarianism espoused by a few in this thread. I really don't mind (perhaps even support) a limited social safety net to cushion a hard fall. The problem, of course, is when the net is so grandiose that becomes a "home" of dependency. Which of course is the anatomy of many government programs... start out small, then grow to win favor among that majority I mentioned. Unemployment benefits for two years is toooo long. Sorry, but 3 or 4 months tops for all able-bodied people.

Beyond fire, police, snow removal, waste removal and road fixing, I also don't mind our local public libraries and parks, and yes, I think some safety and health codes are just fine. It's the layers of red tape and wild spending that gets under my skin.

(05-26-2010 11:11 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  Worldwide, I think as centuries go on (if the world hasn't nuked itself by then) I unfortunately see a continued shift toward statist and socialist platforms, as opposed the other direction. This is assuming the world's population continues to grow at an alarming rate and is concentrated in the poorest countries. In fact, I'm surprised the world isn't more "left" than it already is. Getting something for nothing simply appeals to more people than self-reliance and hard work.

As a 'populist' politician, if you can manage to convince a simple majority of the population (i.e. The Victim, the Entitled, the Oppressed, the 'Working Class', etc.) that the minority of the population (i.e. The 'Man', the 'rich', bourgeoisie, etc.) is screwing them over, and that majority deserve such-and-such pieces of the pie, you're already on your way. And this doesn't seem that difficult to do.

Even the terms themselves seem like Socialism (or Progressive) would have an advertising and marketing edge, as ironic as that sounds. Socialism has the warm, fuzzy "social" in the term. I mean, who doesn't like to be social? Whereas capitalism has this vague reference to cold, hard "capital". i.e. perception of Old Gorden Gekko type guys with pinstripe suits are the ones engaging in capital everyday.

That said, though I lean in a libertarian direction, I'm still nowhere near the pure libertarianism espoused by a few in this thread. I really don't mind (perhaps even support) a limited social safety net to cushion a hard fall. The problem, of course, is when the net is so grandiose that becomes a "home" of dependency. Which of course is the anatomy of many government programs... start out small, then grow to win favor among that majority I mentioned. Unemployment benefits for two years is toooo long. Sorry, but 3 or 4 months tops for all able-bodied people.

Beyond fire, police, snow removal, waste removal and road fixing, I also don't mind our local public libraries and parks, and yes, I think some safety and health codes are just fine. It's the layers of red tape and wild spending that gets under my skin.

Waste and corruption is gov't overriding evil.

(05-26-2010 11:16 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(05-26-2010 11:11 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  Worldwide, I think as centuries go on (if the world hasn't nuked itself by then) I unfortunately see a continued shift toward statist and socialist platforms, as opposed the other direction. This is assuming the world's population continues to grow at an alarming rate and is concentrated in the poorest countries. In fact, I'm surprised the world isn't more "left" than it already is. Getting something for nothing simply appeals to more people than self-reliance and hard work.

As a 'populist' politician, if you can manage to convince a simple majority of the population (i.e. The Victim, the Entitled, the Oppressed, the 'Working Class', etc.) that the minority of the population (i.e. The 'Man', the 'rich', bourgeoisie, etc.) is screwing them over, and that majority deserve such-and-such pieces of the pie, you're already on your way. And this doesn't seem that difficult to do.

Even the terms themselves seem like Socialism (or Progressive) would have an advertising and marketing edge, as ironic as that sounds. Socialism has the warm, fuzzy "social" in the term. I mean, who doesn't like to be social? Whereas capitalism has this vague reference to cold, hard "capital". i.e. perception of Old Gorden Gekko type guys with pinstripe suits are the ones engaging in capital everyday.

That said, though I lean in a libertarian direction, I'm still nowhere near the pure libertarianism espoused by a few in this thread. I really don't mind (perhaps even support) a limited social safety net to cushion a hard fall. The problem, of course, is when the net is so grandiose that becomes a "home" of dependency. Which of course is the anatomy of many government programs... start out small, then grow to win favor among that majority I mentioned. Unemployment benefits for two years is toooo long. Sorry, but 3 or 4 months tops for all able-bodied people.

Beyond fire, police, snow removal, waste removal and road fixing, I also don't mind our local public libraries and parks, and yes, I think some safety and health codes are just fine. It's the layers of red tape and wild spending that gets under my skin.

Waste and corruption is gov't overriding evil.

I would agree...and it is because it has no competition. That is why I would like to see some secessions and have the states compete for citizens. Competition for stolen wages might improve both of those items.

(05-25-2010 06:23 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(05-25-2010 06:16 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Get rid of public schools.

Parents actively seek out schools that suit their kids.

Teachers are held more accountable to stakeholders.

Kids no longer learn to depend on a governmental system to take care of them.

I don't think that we can eliminate public schools altogether. Maybe turning public schools into charter schools would work.

I'd like to see a voucher system available. While not perfect, it's a straightforward, affordable path to achieving many of these aims.

(05-26-2010 11:25 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-25-2010 06:23 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(05-25-2010 06:16 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Get rid of public schools.

Parents actively seek out schools that suit their kids.

Teachers are held more accountable to stakeholders.

Kids no longer learn to depend on a governmental system to take care of them.

I don't think that we can eliminate public schools altogether. Maybe turning public schools into charter schools would work.

I'd like to see a voucher system available. While not perfect, it's a straightforward, affordable path to achieving many of these aims.

My only fear with vouchers is the possible tie in with the government. You know that once they get a foot in the door...it never closes. Just make sure the government can not meddle and I'm Ok with vouchers.

(05-26-2010 11:23 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-26-2010 11:16 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(05-26-2010 11:11 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  Worldwide, I think as centuries go on (if the world hasn't nuked itself by then) I unfortunately see a continued shift toward statist and socialist platforms, as opposed the other direction. This is assuming the world's population continues to grow at an alarming rate and is concentrated in the poorest countries. In fact, I'm surprised the world isn't more "left" than it already is. Getting something for nothing simply appeals to more people than self-reliance and hard work.

As a 'populist' politician, if you can manage to convince a simple majority of the population (i.e. The Victim, the Entitled, the Oppressed, the 'Working Class', etc.) that the minority of the population (i.e. The 'Man', the 'rich', bourgeoisie, etc.) is screwing them over, and that majority deserve such-and-such pieces of the pie, you're already on your way. And this doesn't seem that difficult to do.

Even the terms themselves seem like Socialism (or Progressive) would have an advertising and marketing edge, as ironic as that sounds. Socialism has the warm, fuzzy "social" in the term. I mean, who doesn't like to be social? Whereas capitalism has this vague reference to cold, hard "capital". i.e. perception of Old Gorden Gekko type guys with pinstripe suits are the ones engaging in capital everyday.

That said, though I lean in a libertarian direction, I'm still nowhere near the pure libertarianism espoused by a few in this thread. I really don't mind (perhaps even support) a limited social safety net to cushion a hard fall. The problem, of course, is when the net is so grandiose that becomes a "home" of dependency. Which of course is the anatomy of many government programs... start out small, then grow to win favor among that majority I mentioned. Unemployment benefits for two years is toooo long. Sorry, but 3 or 4 months tops for all able-bodied people.

Beyond fire, police, snow removal, waste removal and road fixing, I also don't mind our local public libraries and parks, and yes, I think some safety and health codes are just fine. It's the layers of red tape and wild spending that gets under my skin.

Waste and corruption is gov't overriding evil.

I would agree...and it is because it has no competition. That is why I would like to see some secessions and have the states compete for citizens. Competition for stolen wages might improve both of those items.

The South shall rise again.