Meet Barack Hussein Mugabe

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Um... he did.

I'm charitable enough to accept that his answer would not be that he pays taxes solely to fund tomahawk missiles.

[rah]

I'm one of the smaller government types. The federal government is not the solution to a lot of problems. Wars, whether I agree with them or not is one of the proper functions of the federal government.
So yes, funding tomahawk missiles is preferable than some social programs that I don't think the government should be involved in.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by rah
I'm one of the smaller government types. The federal government is not the solution to a lot of problems. Wars, whether I agree with them or not is one of the proper functions of the federal government.

So yes, funding tomahawk missiles is preferable than some social programs that I don't think the government should be involved in.

Surely the public has an interest in defending itself. Why isn't the funding for such missiles done on a market basis?

My question is: what makes it a proper function of the federal government?

[rah]

Hmm, I guess I didn't get that post agathon.

Are you saying the armed forces and it's materials isn't a proper function of the Federal Government?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by rah
Hmm, I guess I didn't get that post agathon.

Are you saying the armed forces and it's materials isn't a proper function of the Federal Government?

Nope. I'm asking you why you think it is a proper function of the Federal Government. There has to be some reason or it's just arbitrary.

[rah]

National Defense. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
That's not something I would offshore.

Or are you saying that national defense isn't required?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by rah
National Defense. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
That's not something I would offshore.

Or are you saying that national defense isn't required?

No. For the United States to function, its people need lots of things that aren't provided by the Federal Government, but by the market.

Why are defence, education, policing, etc. not provided by the market? Surely people have as much interest in feeding and clothing themselves as in defending themselves, yet they manage to do the former without requiring state owned collective farms or coat factories.

Offshoring is a red herring. The government could introduce tariffs or bans if it wanted to prevent that, so that isn't a sufficient justification for Federal control of defence spending.

There's an obvious reason that defence, policing, education, etc. aren't left to private hands. That's why no advanced state does so. I want to know if you know what it is.

[rah]

Hmm, the whole reason for the united states being formed was for defense. Everything else was just window dressing. Hence why the president is the commander in chief.

It's one of the few duties that the federal goverment should be doing in my opinion.
Defense, trade agreements, treaties and intra-state issues (communication, transportation, oversight of laws) are about it as far as I'm concerned. The state governments should be handling everything else.
Issues like medicare, SS, and health coverage are a gray area for me. While I think the states should be handling it, it probably wouldn't work in practice because people would move to were the benefits were best when they need them. Who knows, maybe it would work better.


The federal government has gotten completely out of hand and should be reigned in. I don't see either candidate doing that however. But I think Obama thinks the government should be solving a lot of different problems. I don't agree and won't give him my support.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by rah
Hmm, the whole reason for the united states being formed was for defense. Everything else was just window dressing. Hence why the president is the commander in chief.

That was 200 and change ago. Why now?

It's one of the few duties that the federal goverment should be doing in my opinion.

Yes, you've said that. I want to know why you believe it.

Defense, trade agreements, treaties and intra-state issues (communication, transportation, oversight of laws) are about it as far as I'm concerned.

These are different. You are talking on the one hand about government setting regulations and enforcing them, and on the other about the large scale provision of a service which requires the use of large and expensive goods.

For example, the government could set all the laws covering these things and then leave operation of the courts and enforcement of these things up to private markets (e.g. if someone does something wrong, you take them to a court where you pay a judge for his services and so on – the only federal involvement being the provision of a final court of appeal or something like that as a check on the privatized courts).

But defence isn't like that. For example, the military is really just that part of the security forces which we pay to protect us that protects us against foreign enemies. The police protect us against domestic enemies. Why don't people just buy private security instead of being forced to pay for it by the state. Then people could just choose not to pay and defend themselves by buying assault rifles and razor wire if they chose too.

Similarly, if most people cared about defending themselves from foreign aggression, there shouldn't be any problem in getting them to pay voluntarily.

The question is: why should the government make people pay for these things? Why can't people just pay for the things they want and not pay for the things they don't want?

The state governments should be handling everything else.
Issues like medicare, SS, and health coverage are a gray area for me. While I think the states should be handling it, it probably wouldn't work in practice because people would move to were the benefits were best when they need them. Who knows, maybe it would work better.

Why should state governments handle these things? Why should any government?

The federal government has gotten completely out of hand and should be reigned in. I don't see either candidate doing that however. But I think Obama thinks the government should be solving a lot of different problems. I don't agree and won't give him my support.

I don't like Obama either, but your reason for not supporting him seems rather weak. You just keep repeating that the government shouldn't do this without explaining why it shouldn't or who should be doing it and why they should be doing it.

[rah]

But defence isn't like that. For example, the military is really just that part of the security forces which we pay to protect us that protects us against foreign enemies. The police protect us against domestic enemies. Why don't people just buy private security instead of being forced to pay for it by the state. Then people could just choose not to pay and defend themselves by buying assault rifles and razor wire if they chose too.

Similarly, if most people cared about defending themselves from foreign aggression, there shouldn't be any problem in getting them to pay voluntarily.

Because if left to their own recourse, people would choose not to pay for it and rely on their neighbor to do it. Kind of like Europe.

I prefer the Goverment to tax us and make everyone pay their fair share.


And I think McCain lines up better with my personal beliefs. He has done a lot in his life where I don't think Obama has done anything yet, so I'm not sure if he ever will. I like the man, but not ready to be led by him.

[Arrian]

So, our friendly thread starter has apparently convinced everyone that "Barack Hussein Mugabe" was a simple, innocent comparison of socialistic economic policies?

Nobody finds it interesting to consider Mugabe's other policies, like, oh, say... the land "reform" that involved kicking most of the white farmers off their farms and handing them over to black (Zanu-PF supporters) people in corrupt and violent fashion?

I basically had this conversation two weeks ago with a Republican friend of mine. He was really freaked out by Michelle Obama and, by extension, her husband, and seemed to really believe that he would govern in a manner that was... vindictive, shall we say, toward white people. In short, he's scared of the angry black man. And he does not appear to be alone. He's just the most extreme version I know personally.

So... here we have a comparison of Barack Obama (oddly, the same one who Republicans like to brand a whimpy, elitist liberal) to a nasty dictator who has been beating on white people in Africa. But it's not a smear. Goodness no.

Sorry, but I call bull****.

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

But it's not a smear.

You're right. It wasn't very Obaman of him to enagage in such attacks on The One.

Now that I have thout out of my system, what do you think of his attempts to chase capital out of the country by advocating such nonsense as a "windfall" tax and his plans to punish investment for the sake of fairness?

[rah]

I don't think anyone here took the comparision seriously. At least no posters seem to be supporting it except for a few jokes.

And yes there are some white people that are freaked out about there potentially being a black president.
Yes, silly, but those people are still out there.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

But it's not a smear.

You're right. It wasn't very Obaman of him to enagage in such attacks on The One.

Thank you for our daily Republican talking point, DD.

I don't think he's The One. I just think he's a better choice than McCain. I'm calling the OP like a I see it. Note that I agree regarding the policy: it's a dumb pander. I stated that back on page 1 of the thread.

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]