Romney to announce VP on Saturday

[lukep]

No, they are the administrative personnel that oversee the management of anything. They are necessary.

People that perform meaningful tasks tend to not like to keep track of things, and need people to prod them. Where would a business be without their accountants, managers, CEOs, etc.? The same is true for government personnel. Someone has to keep track of the affairs of state and watch where things go.

Wow, you're grasp of the english language is about as bad as I would expect in the south. I had given you more credit than this.

bu·reau·crat   [byoor-uh-krat]
noun
1. an official of a bureaucracy.

2. an official who works by fixed routine without exercising intelligent judgment.

bu·reauc·ra·cy   [byoo-rok-ruh-see]
noun, plural bu·reauc·ra·cies.
1. government by many bureaus, administrators, and petty officials.
2. the body of officials and administrators, especially of a government or government department.
3. excessive multiplication of, and concentration of power in, administrative bureaus or administrators.
4. administration characterized by excessive red tape and routine.

Account managers, CEOs, accountants are nowhere in here. The whole word bureaucrat revolves around the underlying meaning that they are unnecessary & in the way of progress.

You can't say the same about those professions.

Now, knowing that a position exists that is solely in the way and harmful to progress, would you, as a business owner, hire one?

I would not. And therefore my business would make better returns than my competitor who would.

Free market, baby. All the way.

 

[Rexibit]

Account managers, CEOs, accountants are nowhere in here. The whole word bureaucrat revolves around the underlying meaning that they are unnecessary & in the way of progress.

You're essentially advocating the need for a flatter/leaner society as a whole. Which is, in itself, not a bad thing. However, you say that account managers, CEOs, etc. are necessary is wrong depending on the size of a company. The bigger it gets, the more redundant functions a person's job will perform to keep track of things.

This in turn leads to the hiring of people whose sole job is to manage other's paper trails. This ultimately leads to waste through misplaced/allocated funds and mis communications when those in charge trust these people more than they do the people actually performing the work, if anything out of sheer laziness due to the size of the company.

I am overly simplifying this, but if you look at any large--powerful--company you will find this. It's one reason people love to vent on the Internet about horrid customer service issues, it's often the procedures of the company that are their cause, and this comes from legal and beaurocratic-like policies inside the company to protect its interests.

Free market, baby. All the way.

Exactly, I'd love to live in a world where the corporations controlled society with no checks or balances because they were the top of the food chain, legally, with no oversight. Wouldn't you?

 

[guerilla]

Private citizens managing anything is a bureaucratic function. Society can't exist without some party facilitating transactions and keeping records.

You know exactly what I mean when I say "bureaucrat". Semantic games are below you.

Exactly, I'd love to live in a world where the corporations controlled society with no checks or balances because they were the top of the food chain, legally, with no oversight. Wouldn't you?

You're living in it bro.

We're advocating a society where force doesn't dictate control or legitimacy.

 

[lukep]

you say that account managers, CEOs, etc. are necessary is wrong depending on the size of a company.

I actually didn't even say they were necessary. I just said they aren't bureaucracy.

The bigger it gets, the more redundant functions a person's job will perform to keep track of things.

This in turn leads to the hiring of people whose sole job is to manage other's paper trails. This ultimately leads to waste through misplaced/allocated funds and mis communications when those in charge trust these people more than they do the people actually performing the work, if anything out of sheer laziness due to the size of the company.

I am overly simplifying this, but if you look at any large--powerful--company you will find this. It's one reason people love to vent on the Internet about horrid customer service issues, it's often the procedures of the company that are their cause, and this comes from legal and beaurocratic-like policies inside the company to protect its interests.

Corps, who have to follow government-mandated procedures and deal with things like Taxes and regulations, do indeed get bloated and inefficient. Not nearly to the level a government itself does, but I have seen what you mean with my own eyes when I worked at a couple of fortune 500 corps back in the 1990s. It did not effect all levels though, only the ones that had to deal with government policy.

Take away the government policies and the free market will streamline them into shape or else their lunch gets eaten by competitors.

Like all the others on here, you have made the mistake of quoting a situation from the current world around you to use as if it were a free market example. It is not.

Exactly, I'd love to live in a world where the corporations controlled society with no checks or balances because they were the top of the food chain, legally, with no oversight. Wouldn't you?

Your fear of the unknown is amusing.

 

[Rexibit]

You know exactly what I mean when I say "bureaucrat". Semantic games are below you.

It is, but I was mainly just wanting to see if you had some points on how you envisioned this dream taking root without human nature's corruption taking root and twisting it prior to its fruition. After all, it takes a couple generations before the people forget the past and move on with a new norms.

We're advocating a society where force doesn't dictate control or legitimacy.

Where's the management of the overall society? Who polices? Who checks and balances crimes and brings them to trial? If so, a free market is going to require some funding and submission on the citizen's part to pay into it. If not, are they truly subject to that society's actions if they don't participate?

Those things are what I am curious about.

Your fear of the unknown is amusing.

I only fear the certainty of human nature's corruption when it shows its ugly head for those that gain power, because they will undoubtedly control those that are meant to prevent abuse. At least now you may just get someone who isn't in their pocket, because scandals at such pocketed officials can keep them somewhat honest.

 

[dreamache]

Exactly, I'd love to live in a world where the corporations controlled society with no checks or balances because they were the top of the food chain, legally, with no oversight. Wouldn't you?

The problem is, corporations *do* currently control society with no checks and balances.

It's not because they're at the top of the food chain, it's because we label a group of individuals the state (politicians) and grant them special privileges over others. And because we know corruptibility exists in human nature, politicians are bought and paid for by these corporations. It's called crony-capitalism.

The idea that we can prevent this from occurring by imposing regulations on these corporations is laughable, because these corporations are the ones who call the shots. Any regulation you see now is at the benefit of the few mega corps that politicians answer to.

The fix is the removal of these special citizens that we believe are righteous enough to never abuse some rules and laws written down on a piece of paper. The fix is removing the legislative source in which corporations can use and abuse to their advantage.

 

[guerilla]

It is, but I was mainly just wanting to see if you had some points on how you envisioned this dream taking root without human nature's corruption taking root and twisting it prior to its fruition.

I don't believe it is human nature to be corrupt. I believe it is human nature to optimize for incentives. The incentives, properly aligned, lead to better outcomes.

It's basic economics really. Nothing I am proposing is that radical among people who are into free market economics and individualist philosophy.

After all, it takes a couple generations before the people forget the past and move on with a new norms.

I think that incentive based behavioral changes happen faster, but I am the guy who said it could be 200 years until we have a decently libertarian future.

Where's the management of the overall society?

There is no management required. That's statist thinking, that someone has to be in control, whether man or god, and men are certainly not gods.

Who polices? Who checks and balances crimes and brings them to trial?

The "who will build the roads" concern. David Friedman has written an excellent book, available online for free, called "Machinery of Freedom" where he tackles this sort of thing. There is no shortage of scholarship on the topic, and many historical examples as well.

If so, a free market is going to require some funding and submission on the citizen's part to pay into it. If not, are they truly subject to that society's actions if they don't participate?

You keep talking about this abstract "society" but society is simply an aggregation of many individual actors.

People will pay for those things they value, and won't for those things they don't.

Those things are what I am curious about.

I appreciate that.

 

[Kiopa_Matt]

The problem is, corporations *do* currently control society with no checks and balances.

But we have tons, and tons, and tons of checks and balances. So many that you guys complain there's too many (and I agree with that one). For example, take the Deepwater Horizon spill. BP paid out tens of billions due to the checks & balances that are in place.

How would that work under an anarchist system? I'm assuming instead of any penalties to BP, or required compensation to the 10s of thousands of affected livelihoods due to their negligence, BP could just thumb their nose at everyone? Then it'd just be left up to the free market, and everyone's free will as to whether they want to continue buying BP products?

Or how about poachers in say Africa? Could they just wipe out entire species, and leave the carcasses laying on the ground, just for the tusks, with absolutely no worry about consequences? I mean, there's a huge demand for the ivory, and if there's no government, there can't be any laws against it. Free market, baby!

 

[guerilla]

But we have tons, and tons, and tons of checks and balances.

No, there aren't.

For example, take the Deepwater Horizon spill. BP paid out tens of billions due to the checks & balances that are in place.

That had nothing to do with checks and balances. That was simply BP buying off responsibility by giving the government money.

How would that work under an anarchist system?

Well, first you would have to understand how property rights work, and you'll have to forgive me, but that's learning you should be doing on your own. It's all out there.

Not to make this personal, but it's incredibly lazy when people continually participate in these discussions and avoid doing any of the background work to understand the subject matter.

Or how about poachers in say Africa? Could they just wipe out entire species, and leave the carcasses laying on the ground, just for the tusks, with absolutely no worry about consequences?

That is actually what happened with animals were kept in the commons.

The reason why the Buffalo almost went extinct and we have never run out of milk cows has everything to do with the incentives behind property ownership.

Commons (what you would call a [sic] check and balance) do not work.

 

[jryan21]

Rolling out your vice presidential nominee is one of the most crucial aspects of every campaign, and judging from the headlines, Romney has completely blown it.

On the evening news, a visibly shaken Chuck Todd reported the 2012 campaign has not touched on Medicare, but now, all of the sudden, it is front and center, and it will be a big part of voters' decisions in November.

Daily Kos: Florida newspapers: Romney is in big, big trouble

 

[Moxie]

a visibly shaken Chuck Todd

 

[B. Friendly]

Since corporations are people, let's hold their executive board criminally liable for any crimes the corporation commits. Also, let's legislatively create a "corporate death penalty" wherein corporations that have committed serious crimes (Bhopal, India) are "executed" and "killed", their assets seized and liquidated by the state, most particularly including stocks.

Thereby making stockholders directly and financially responsible for the actions of the corporations whose stock they own. When stock value is based in part on the level of risk the actions of the corporations are taking, corporations will behave better.

I also like the idea of bringing back beheading for corporate executives. HD video, live feed, Superbowl atmosphere, hot chick with large tits getting splattered by Vice President of Operations blood.

 

[drave]

Since corporations are people, let's hold their executive board criminally liable for any crimes the corporation commits. Also, let's legislatively create a "corporate death penalty" wherein corporations that have committed serious crimes (Bhopal, India) are "executed" and "killed", their assets seized and liquidated by the state, most particularly including stocks.

Thereby making stockholders directly and financially responsible for the actions of the corporations whose stock they own. When stock value is based in part on the level of risk the actions of the corporations are taking, corporations will behave better.

I also like the idea of bringing back beheading for corporate executives. HD video, live feed, Superbowl atmosphere, hot chick with large tits getting splattered by Vice President of Operations blood.

#1 i told you.

#2 shut the fuck up. nobody cares what you think, even if you had rational thought, which you dont, cocksucker.

#3 thereby blah, & heretofore whatthefuckever, asshole.

 

[drave]

fucking obama plant desperately trying to worm his way into a thinking environment. banhammer.

 

[PhillipsPierce]

First of all I'm not American -but me and everyone else on this planet is affected by American politics. And with an election between Romney and Obama the only thing I have left to say is: We're fucked.

 

[mattseh]

Wow, you're grasp of the english language is about as bad as I would expect in the south. I had given you more credit than this.

OH THE IRONY.

Luke PM when you have time please, for non-troll reasons.

 

[B. Friendly]

#3 thereby blah, & heretofore whatthefuckever, asshole.

Pretty classic case here. You should aim all that unfocused rage at the father that raped you, instead of strangers you've never met.

fucking obama plant desperately trying to worm his way into a thinking environment. banhammer.

Actually, I'm Tea Party. But not the Tea Party retards like you believe in, spoon-fed as you are by the corporate mass-media.

First of all I'm not American -but me and everyone else on this planet is affected by American politics. And with an election between Romney and Obama the only thing I have left to say is: We're fucked.

Fact is, Romney isn't THAT bad, he's just a light-skinned version of Obama. He isn't getting rid of nationalized health care, nor any other substantive change in policy save for a tax-cut to those multinational corporations that haven't exported American jobs to slave-states like China.

It's an internal problem, one that will hopefully result in civil war, permanent change in the constitution (what I call the "Yes, we really fucking mean it." movement).

But I think the rest of the world overstates America's importance in global affairs, which is one big contributor to your complaints about the US being involved in situations that are none of it's business. It's the same dependency mentality outside the US that has paralyzed the Producers inside the US, and we're in process of cutting it out like cancer. You could do this too, if you like. Or, you can start developing dependent relationships on nation-states that have stellar track records on human rights (and where they come from) such as China and North Korea.

Don't pay too much attention to retards like the one above. When it comes, his corpse will be bouncing off the pavement from the roof of the local Post Office just like any of the other Statists.

 

[hellblazer]

Hilarious little picture. The supposed "enlightened" one at the end of the trail is so enlightened he votes for nobody and thus affects no change.

It's like the homeless fools you see on the streets, so wacked out of their minds, yet they think they're spouting true pearls of wisdom.

I am convinced that the Ron Paul movement, along with the Alex Jones movement, are controlled and directed by the international communists, in order to peel off libertarian/conservative voters, make them disillusioned with the entire system, and thus neutralize them as a threat to the communist-controlled Democrat Party.

The Ron Paul nuts are just as guilty for what is about to happen to this country as the communists are. The only ones truly fighting for America's life and soul are the ones who have put their differences aside and unified behind an imperfect candidate and an imperfect party.

The real problem with the Republican Party is that for the past 30/40 years, they have been taken over by moderates who have no principles whatsoever, leading them to simply go along with the communists in the Democrat Party. That's why it appears sometimes as if there is no difference between the two.

But a great conservative resurgence is happening. Real conservatives/libertarians, operating through the Tea Party, are on a mission to reclaim the Republican Party and the country as a whole. Yes, Romney is a wishy-washy moderate, but he will be controlled by a conservative Congress.

If libertarians, Ron Paul psychos, and other assorted disillusioned conservatives sit on the sidelines this election, they are essentially handing the Communists the win. They aren't accomplishing anything. They aren't making any statement. They are like the child who pouts and goes home if he doesn't get everything he wants.

And so what we get is idiots like Lukep and Guerilla loftily sniping from the sidelines, sneering at the masses stupidly thinking there is a lesser of two evils, foolishly missing the larger conspiracy threatening to envelop us all, accomplishing literally ZERO. They work on their stupid little websites and zealously coordinate their fundraising drives and messaging campaigns for a controlled opposition candidate who has no chance of winning.

The best thing to do with these people is completely ignore them. They accomplish the same thing as the libtards. They hand the victory to the international communists. They demoralize and diminish the power of the conservatives and libertarians working to affect REAL change. Shun them. Laugh at their idiotic assertions that there is zero difference between the two parties. Pity their blindness and the fact that they can't see the big picture. Try to educate them once in a while. Above all, continue trying to save the country, until the time when the global Communists win and we'll all be in the same re-education camp, listening to those same foolish drones gripe about the parties and the march to tyranny and how much more enlightened they are than the rest of humanity.

 

[lukep]

Do you really think Communism is the bigger "Conspiracy" or threat?

You're fighting shadows of McCarthyism, Hellboy... Anarchists are fighting the largest threat that all mankind has been facing since we still pack hunted wooly mammoths... The State is the real threat, and you sir are chasing insignificant minnows around the pond in circles. Communism is but one form of government. We're trying to destroy them all.

But please keep chasing those minnows and stay out of the big boy's way.

 

[JakeStratham]

'A government at bottom is nothing more than a group of men, and as a practical matter most of them are inferior men. ... Yet these nonentities, by the intellectual laziness of men in general ... are generally obeyed as a matter of duty (and) assumed to have a kind of wisdom that is superior to ordinary wisdom.'

lol good ole Mencken.