it looks like it's our government who's having a problem understanding that, with their PRIVATISED police forces.. Not me...
http://www.google.com/search?q=privatised+police+forces&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=wH2&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&sclient=psy-ab&q=privatised+police+forces+in+USA&oq=privatised+police+forces+in+USA&aq=f&aqi=q-A1&aql=&gs_l=serp.12..33i29.7847.9482.0.13364.7.7.0.0.0.0.273.1377.0j2j5.7.0...0.0._yj4vaet6Jk&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=c906f5821a52c92b&biw=1280&bih=857
Or ALL our pointless wars our military fights for corporations like big oil, or big pharma (ie our drug war)
I understand your in the legal world, but who is ANYONE to force ANY law on me, as long as I'm not hurting anyone? The only purpose our legal system serves is to take our rights, and responsibilities.. The beast is the state and corporation working as one... and that's what we have now
MOST of America's industry is now made in prison by prisoners.. This is a huge sign we have problems
You and I see this very differently, but I don't need the state, or any powerful corporation telling me what I can and can't do
-- Modified on 5/28/2012 7:51:53 AM
The man behind the curtain has been exposed. He is an arrogant liar, a socialist, and as Bill Clinton said: "Barack 0bama is an AMATEUR!"
and the people who have their noses up (the "o's") as far as they can, don't know when they are not smelling the roses!
you guys are just as socialist forcing the rest of us to pay for police and the military... This is one of those things where BOTH parties are socialist, but it's only problem when the spending spree of tax money is on something you can't support..
when top name Dems callout their own......the common folk conveniently ignore those postulations as if they don't exist. the number is up to what now..16 Dems advising the Bain knocks on Romney jsut ain't civil or right???
weather it's bain capital or the secret service seeing hookers in south America is nothing but a distraction.. and it makes us dumb, because it's so stupid.. That's why I stopped watching the crap years ago
while our news covered the hooker story they did not cover the big events that took place at the summit of the america's.. Like every nation in both north and south america except for canada and the USA forming another group for countries that will have better policy's dealing with Cuba
-- Modified on 5/28/2012 8:00:59 AM
To say that conservatives are "socialists" because they want everyone to pay for military and the police, fails to understand even the basic nature of the state.
There are some things that are necessarily state functions. The military is a perfect example. A nation has to have the military under control of the government. The military has to act for the government, and there cannot be 14 automous armies. If a nation needs to go to war because it is attacked, it cannot have half the military say, "No. Our company policy is we don't fight X."
The police are another example. They are enforcing laws passed by the state and the state has to be able to control that force.
Probably amlost every nation in the history of the world had the police and military under the control of the state.
On the other hand, the government does not have to pay for everyone's flu shot. That is only recently seen as a government function.
When I was a kid, polio was almost eradicated by private source with minimal government support - parents paid for polio shots.
Likewise, providing energy was a private affair, although it could be regulated to a degree. The same with transportation.
Obama says "we built a railroad." No. The government gave patches of worthless land to companies, and private companies paid for building the rail road.
It is a question of degree. Even Russian, China, Cuba, and N. Korea have always had some private business, usually small farms. When the feds take over something like health care, which is 1/7 of the economy it has taken a huge step in one direction.
it looks like it's our government who's having a problem understanding that, with their PRIVATISED police forces.. Not me...
http://www.google.com/search?q=privatised+police+forces&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=wH2&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&sclient=psy-ab&q=privatised+police+forces+in+USA&oq=privatised+police+forces+in+USA&aq=f&aqi=q-A1&aql=&gs_l=serp.12..33i29.7847.9482.0.13364.7.7.0.0.0.0.273.1377.0j2j5.7.0...0.0._yj4vaet6Jk&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=c906f5821a52c92b&biw=1280&bih=857
Or ALL our pointless wars our military fights for corporations like big oil, or big pharma (ie our drug war)
I understand your in the legal world, but who is ANYONE to force ANY law on me, as long as I'm not hurting anyone? The only purpose our legal system serves is to take our rights, and responsibilities.. The beast is the state and corporation working as one... and that's what we have now
MOST of America's industry is now made in prison by prisoners.. This is a huge sign we have problems
You and I see this very differently, but I don't need the state, or any powerful corporation telling me what I can and can't do
-- Modified on 5/28/2012 7:51:53 AM
First, the link you provided is to dozens of articles. Obviously, I cannot read that many links. A flood of information is not information at all.
In any event, "private" police forces are not the same as public, regardless of what the articles say or the name used. A "private" security guard cannot do certain functions. The most obvious, is they can only make "citizens" arrests and lack the authority given to police departments.
Likewise, you confuse the purpose of the war with the means of fighting it. You may think that a particular war is for oil, and that may be true, argumendo (not conceeding, just accepting for the purposes of discussion.)
However, the forces are state forces. The CEO of a private corp doesn't order the marines into a country. The government has always controlled the military, unlike the functions that conservates claim are better suited for private.
The irony is that you don't like the state and corporations working as one, but the more the state takes over private functions, the more this happens. If you don't like the state telling you what you have do do in the arena of health, the best solution is to remove the state as much as possible. When the state pays of most of the medical matters, it will control the medical matters.
Obama has often said that medical dollars are not used wisely, which is true. However, his answer is to have the state say what is covered, how often, and why.
Someday, you will need something not covered by the state. Good luck
I(
you still think its ok for the government to take money from me to pay for services you deem fair, and needed, and I dont... My point was the left and the right complain when money is taken from them via taxes, and yell socialism WHEN EVER it's something they don't support...
How about this, they just stop taking ANY money from us, and we figure out how to take car of ourselves...
I promise, It's you that missed my point... and since that was my ONLY point... You're losing me
It isn't a question of what I think is fair. My personal opinion as to the merits has nothing to to with it. In fact, you are inserting yours by making value judgements as to the specifics. You don't like this war or that law.
Regardless of either of our views, war and police powers are inherently a governmental function. They always were and always are. Only the government can make laws, and therefore the government enforces them, one way or another. Only the government can declare war.
However, many other functions can be done - and always were - by non-governmental functions. That is the expansion of the state. From areas that were always the domain of the state to areas which were not.
How about this, they just stop taking ANY money from us, and we figure out how to take car of ourselves...
I promise, It's you that missed my point... and since that was my ONLY point... You're losing me
Since you missed the point from the jump.. where op complained of socialism and I pointed out, it's ok to take money and spend things on things he thinks government should do, so what's the differerence?
BOTH left and right LOVE big government! and love to have them do things for you...
The point your making, sounds just like BULLSHIT - since I don't need or support wars, or need big government
Just some bullshit in defense on why the government should be able to take money from me to pay for things YOU support
-- Modified on 5/28/2012 11:07:59 AM
It is not being in favor of specifics. I like X law banning Y, and you don't, but you like A law banning B.
Whether you approve or not, laws and the police power in inherently governmental. You may disagree as to how much to spend on war, or which war to fight, but you cannot deny that war is a function that is relegated to the government by necessity, a point you keep ignoring.
I may not support X war, and during the late 60's I did not support Vietnam, but even not supporting it, I knew that only the government had jurisdiction to wage war.
The difference is the right wants to keep government limited to core functions that are necessarily governmental, while the left wants to expand the scope of those areas.
It is ironic that you don't want the government telling you what to do, but consider yourself a leftist, which expands the areas where the government does have a say.
BOTH left and right LOVE big government! and love to have them do things for you...
The point your making, sounds just like BULLSHIT - since I don't need or support wars, or need big government
Just some bullshit in defense on why the government should be able to take money from me to pay for things YOU support
-- Modified on 5/28/2012 11:07:59 AM
I keep seeing a post from Willie, and then when I have time to look at it again, it says "Users post is ignored" and it has disappeared.
I am not familiar with how this type of thing operates.
What does that mean and what happened to his post before I could read it?
It is not socialist to have a police force or a military. It's not socialist to have a post office or social security either.
If instead of having Nike shoes we had Uncle Sam shoes, then THAT would be socialist. If you abolished private property on top of that, THAT would be communist.
Socialism does not equal having a government that does something.
When the PEOPLE say they want a military, a police force, a post office, and social security, that is not socialism. That is DEMOCRACY.
Obviously it is not "socialist" to have police or a military. That is obvious from the fact that non-socialists nations have those institutions.
As for the rest, it is a question of degree. No country has ever been 100% socialist, capitalist, or communist. There were private farms and businesses in Russia and Mao's China and in Imperial England, which may have been one of the most "capitilists" states, the government controlled some functions.
When the government controls 10% and the rest is private it is more capitalist. Inch it up to 20% and it is increasingly socialiast. Keep going. Get the point?
Also, it can be done without "owning." The private sector can control and own Nike, and the state can leave it private, but regulate to the extent where it has real control. That decreases the capitalistic nature of the society.
If the governemnt controls 23% of society, to use a random, hypothetical number, and then takes over an industry that accounts for 14% of the country, it has become more socialist.
Ironically, the crowd that wants government to keep its hands off of women's bodies, is willing to hand over control of their bodies to the government. The person who controls the purse, controls who gets the money and how it is spent.
If instead of having Nike shoes we had Uncle Sam shoes, then THAT would be socialist. If you abolished private property on top of that, THAT would be communist.
Socialism does not equal having a government that does something.
When the PEOPLE say they want a military, a police force, a post office, and social security, that is not socialism. That is DEMOCRACY.
can one person call the other a socialist? I think that's more to the point; how quickly, usually conservatives can call someone else A Socialist.
-- Modified on 5/28/2012 6:09:58 PM
It is impossible to say a precise degree that tips the scale.
Personally, for me, when the government controls over 50% of the economy, it is a bad sign. At that stage, it is mostly state controlled, by definition, so it is more one than the other.
The problem is also "subtle" forms. In Argentina in the bad ole days, the newspapers were all privately owned. But the government "controlled" them, mostly not by thugs or laws relating to newspapers, but by "neutral" regulations. An article was critical of the government, and a buiilding inspector imposed a $500 fine for a cracked window. Another article and another fine of $1000 for a poorly maintained stairway.
Of course, no one is opposed to safe buildings, so who can object.
Without "controlling" the economy, the state can run the country to a scary degree.
When I look at the hundreds of thousands of regulations on every level of govt, I get nervous.
THe laws passed by legislatures are just the begining. Look at the length of the Fed Code of Reg, or Code of Reg in CA. Hundreds of thousands of pages of laws not passed by congress, that will never be changed.
-- Modified on 5/28/2012 6:09:58 PM