I think Randi said this a while ago, but it just hit me now

Dems are useless. They are in an abusive relationshhip with the repugs. The repugs are the abusers, the dems are the ENABLERS. They have no moral authority to criticize repugs and *, if they all voted for giving war powers to the nitwit, if they voted for the Patriot act. We the people have noone except a handful of Congressmen (Conyers, the Black Causus, Kucinich) and one Senator (Boxer) to speak for us. How can they hear us if our representatives don't speak? I am afraid it will take more, much more, to make them hear us. Massive peaceful demonstrations, and I mean massive. We are not there yet. I have lost hope in elections after 2000 and 2004. We have to educate people around us, we have to be vocal. History teaches that no tyranny lasts forever, but the ends are not pretty. Do we really need to sink into an unbearable economic and civic depression to start healing this country? I do hope it happens sooner than that. Do you have hope?

That is probably not a popular sentiment, here, on Democratic Underground. But understand what I want is constitutional government, less control over us. THAT is how they've overrun us, taking away our control

Such as the public school that will not allow me to send OTC medications like Tylenol without a doctors note, for my kids. Not for other kids. I am not entitled to provide my kids OTC medication, according to public school policy. I must use a doctor. For OTC meds. Sure. A few years ago my kid got yelled at for bringing motrin. He had gone to the emergency room the day before, picked up FROM school, having hurt himself in gym. The doctor prescribed motrin, but we forgot to get the note of "permission" for it. The school nurse YELLED at my kid for it. Though he left her office the day before with the sprain he got THERE.

Dumbing down of America and more. Do not trust your own judgment, as a general rule, we aren't capable of taking care of ourselves. It just goes on and on. I fear the democrats are too far into the "we're from the government, we're here to help", as if any government is much better in that regard than any other.

We need to enable our people to do the right things, and stop thinking some all-powerful judge will keep us in line. There is no all-powerful judge on this planet, just a lot of much smaller ones with certain, inalienable rights. We need to keep those rights.

... I see it TOTALLY DEVOID of the (traditional/conventional) Libertarian posture regarding corporations and global economics. In the absence of those considerations, such advocacy becomes a Carte Blanche for 'laissez faire' economics which, without extensive abolition of today's "business as usual," becomes nothing more than Plantation Economics. Today's corporations operate like privateers - criminals with titles (Letters of Marque) - entitled totalitarians (slaveholders).

the practice of allowing corporations the same types of rights accorded to the individual. If a person can use a corp to do their dirty work...they surely will. As they surely have. If individuals could be held accountable for the actions of these mega-monsters, illegal actions against individuals (and groups of individuals) could be managed.

As it is, there is no system of law to account for what they do aside from financial penalties. And I think we can all agree, murderous acts of negligence call for FAR more than a fine. Practices such as toxic waste dumps, can anyone say a fine pays for the lives damaged, ruined and ended prematurely? How does money fix that?

I understand what you mean, "Libertarian posture regarding corporations and global economics" but I do not believe any concept of libertarianism is responsible for problems in those areas right now. Many of those corps are privateers, and as such, they are above the law. But that was never the idea of our constitution, or libertarians, to place corps profits above the will and the rights of the people. Eminent domain is only a small part of it. Medical issues from drugs which harm, from drug companies working hand in hand with the feds. Polution which harms everyone. Individuals are not allowed to get away with such things, but large corps are.

I say that is the problem.

No place of business should be above the law. No government official should be either. THOSE are the problems we face. I say...going back to a concept of individual rights would bring us closer to being able to face our attackers. Rather than paying them for the privilidge...to live.

Soon we'll be paying for oxygen. Think it can't happen? We're already doing it for water.

And who will profit?

that have an abnormal fear of taxation, then, yes, that is an unpopular sentiment. You can't have a just society without a social safety net, and we demonstrate that more and more every day. If you want to talk about how we can make public schools more effective, fine, but BushCo & any libertarian that I've ever known want to eliminate the public schools.

that libertarians have an "have an abnormal fear of taxation" in the EXACT SAME way we have (now I'm all in with the WE statement, ha) an abnormal fear of government control.

Now...is ANYONE on this board going to say unreasonable government control isn't a problem? It should make you take a step back.

Can anyone see that the greed of the corporations we face now is part and parcel and completely LINKED to the greed of our government??

THAT is what we fear friend. Those are the people, and the attitudes, we fear.

Basically, what we have now...fascism. Leading to dictatorship.

What have they done with your taxes?? And precisely what will they do with MORE taxes?? Will there ever be ENOUGH taxes to do what they want?

Think they're going to help you? Think our government will magically turn into something wonderful after the next election?? I could not imagine why one would expect that.

Keep it out of fed hands, that's all I can say. In fed hands, there is no vested interest. Not in our nation in total. It's a problem.

I truly believe that if someone like Kucinich were President, we could have a truly good government, representative of the people. I don't argue for a minute that the current crowd are hypocrites when it comes to taxation, fiscal responsibility, etc. But the answer isn't less government where we need it - in education, infrastructure, TRUE homeland security. Unless you're talking about real oversight, because waste has always been a problem, no matter what party is in charge. But again, any libertarian I've ever known (including a close family member) wants ZERO government, and the free market is the answer to everything. And I won't speak for everyone, but I don't think that is something most on this board would agree with.

To be perfectly honest with you, the Canadian motto of "peace, order and good government" which is their equivalent to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is more in line with the way I think and what speaks to my sense of what is right and what is in my heart. But perhaps that's just me. And perhaps it's an unrealistic expectation for a country so morally and ethically bankrupt, and beholden to corporations.

"Who is to say that we couldn't have "good" government?

I truly believe that if someone like Kucinich were President, we could have a truly good government, representative of the people. I don't argue for a minute that the current crowd are hypocrites when it comes to taxation, fiscal responsibility, etc. But the answer isn't less government where we need it - in education, infrastructure, TRUE homeland security. Unless you're talking about real oversight, because waste has always been a problem, no matter what party is in charge. But again, any libertarian I've ever known (including a close family member) wants ZERO government, and the free market is the answer to everything. And I won't speak for everyone, but I don't think that is something most on this board would agree with.

To be perfectly honest with you, the Canadian motto of "peace, order and good government" which is their equivalent to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is more in line with the way I think and what speaks to my sense of what is right and what is in my heart. But perhaps that's just me. And perhaps it's an unrealistic expectation for a country so morally and ethically bankrupt, and beholden to corporations."

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

I think I should have started with admitting that I'm a poor representative for libertarians, quite honestly. I follow those philosophies, but I don't agree, or necessarily even understand all aspects. Hate to sound as if I'm trying to sound knowledgeable when I'm really just opinionated!

What you say about them wanting zero government is typically true, though I've met a few who don't see that as realistic. I understand the disconnect between seeing the need for certain basic essential services, such as roads and health care, because not only are they important to everyone, but society as a whole suffers if basic needs aren't met for enough people, and I don't think most people even want to live that way, without any care afforded to the general public. Where to draw the line between society needs and individual needs is where I think they see the tax system fail, always, favoring greedy, unprincipled people. Basically, the same people who we know need such systems, because without them they won't act responsibly, somehow, those same types of folks always manage to wind up in charge. People who break the rules for their own gain. They always want to make up the rules too.

I think libertarians would say that if you can't believe free market would ensure quality and control of availability of goods and services, that you are looking at taxes as if they're free money, when in all reality, we ARE paying for EVERYTHING we get. That's how it works right now, economically, basically. It's still money changing hands, and I guess I think that even with government controls and oversights, we can see that problems with greed and anything else we might find with pure "free market", as I understand it, are some of the same problems.

I do know that revenues can be achieved though methods other than taxes. I think that's important, because we spend insane amounts of time and money on the tax system itself, and that further, much of the big money from large corps and wealthy individuals avoids taxing altogether. I also can't agree with taxing at a ridiculous rate of anything close to numbers over 40%, in order to try to "get some of it back because they only pay a little", which I've heard so many times it sounds like economic theory, but I don't believe that it is.

That same tax system then turns around and has our politicians cutting "deals" right and left for tax incentives and tax breaks and all manner of hobnobbing, because since wealthy entities pay the most taxes, they're paid most attention too. It winds up into what we have now, government and business working hand in hand to manage our affairs. Fascism. Business interests overruling the will and welfare of the people, exactly what we have now.

For me, discussions like this alway run along two lines. One, what real changes could we make right now, and also, what is the the final goal.

I like the libertarian ideas best in both regards, because they promote the most freedom, and I think they would try the hardest to do the least harm to our nation. Some of their ideas might sound unrealistic, but I think they are completely success orientated, as opposed to profit orientated, and that they surely wouldn't try to pass any laws or make any changes that were too risky.

I also think they would NOT ignore the majority will of the people, unless it clearly ran counter to the constitution. I trust them in a way I feel I cannot trust Democrats, not only because of core values, but also because so many are, in all reality, entrenched in the murk that is our admin. I feel like I cannot trust that THAT party won't be swayed by greed, and Clinton, for all his pluses, had his dealings too. Few of them are very innocent. They signed off on the Patriot Act, and even if they didn't have time to read the whole thing, they had enough to get an idea what it was. And the timing of that huge document, so ready to be presented, was notable even to me. In my simple mind, the Democrats let too much fly, and only now when things are insane, are they finally speaking up. Now, when it becoming publicly acceptable to do so. Good pr for nominations even.

It might sound difficult to believe we could function well with a much smaller government, but it's easy to see how it would be better, if it was possible. It sounds nuts to think we could form a government that functions to provide what we want and need without taxing us, or taxing us at high rates. But if it were possible, it is certainly the best way to manage things. We all want to do what we please, without having a government or other official entity "rule" us. It's the concept of freedom, making your own rules, as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others.

Myself, I don't fly with using Darwinism in economic theory and social theory, and I don't agree with that as I believe (and I could be wrong) some libertarians apply it. It seems to be an accepted concept that people, in very general terms, will take care of themselves, and not care about the welfare of others. People are selfish. It's happened that way in the past certainly, but, it's not how societies operate very well, and it's not really how we think. A lot of us are selfish, but, a lot of us will give to help others, and, we are not comfortable living immoral, selfish lives. Not the adults, anyway. We believe in charity, we believe in paying taxes, and in my very humble opinion, we need to start believing in ourselves. Believe that we will, overall, do the "right thing" the vast majority of the time, and, legislate to that effect.

so that is why I have real problems with Democrats, because I think they're in that least-common-denominator mindset, where they believe more and more laws, more and more control, will fix problems. I think they're wrong, and that if you legislate to the lowest expectation of human behavior, your practically guaranteeing you'll see it. Drug laws are doing this. Terrorism laws are doing this, believing we need to spy on our people, rather than paying attention to the very valid information they already had. Instead of looking at how the rules failed and why, more and better rules seem to be seen as the fix.

But the real causes go missing, unaccounted for, completely ignored, who knows why?? Look at the drug war; if we have SO very many people buying and taking drugs, then why is it happening? Drugs are nothing new to our culture or human history, so why have we suddenly become so needy and "addicted" that more people are in prison over it than anything else, and more than any other nation. In our nation, a free nation?? We spend billions, over 40 billion last year, and lives are still being ruined, all for no good reason, simple treatment for every addict might be cheaper, and look at how many other costs would then be avioded, up to and including jail. Our people in our prisons is a social problem that should be addressed TODAY, it's a real and tangible social harm we're living with, by design, and what it does is ruin lives. Letting ordinary human lives be ruined by a law of prohibition is plainly not only unjust, but in our case, it's become DANGEROUSLY blind, because for those not directly affected, it seems to be "no big deal". What does that say about us, and for all that, what good is a society in the first place then? I'm talking about orphans in large numbers, and statistics for young black men going to prison that simply CANNOT be. But they are. It should stop. It should stop TODAY.

The rule of law over drugs, promoted and sustained by this admin, AND previous ones, all based on that idea that we, ourselves, have no rights over the chemicals in our bodies, for good or bad, cause this. A government "trying to help", gets people killed and babies born with problems and sometimes, no parents.

And those original reason for the people taking drugs that actually DO cause problems, those many individuals taking drugs, does anyone even look at what is going on to cause it? What's wrong with them? Are we to believe so many people are simply lazy and don't want a life? And IF that is true, isn't it a worse problem even than drug addiction, and shouldn't IT be the target of another "war"?

Stuff like that, I don't see Democrats touching, and it bothers me. I'm afraid they'll continue to tow the line on more popular ideas, when our nation needs better ideas, and in some cases more radical ideas. We need it now more than ever, but I'm afraid when they win, because I think they will, that even well-meaning politicians will play the safe card and not rock the boat. I think libertarians would be less afraid to rock the boat, but that they would do it in sensible ways that the American people agreed with. I think if new ideas were rejected that they would not be pushed anyway, as this president has gotten us accustomed to accepting.

Can I also add, after this really long ramble (sorry), that I agree with you about Kucinich. I look at him for what he's done and what he stands for, rather than his party. I've heard many of his thoughts run quite counter to Libertarian, but not only is his heart in the right place, but he has a long track record of real public service, he's smart as hell, and is motivated. From the most radical point of view, I'd say if he brought us to socialism, it'd be the best socialism on the planet, far exceeding this fascism we're currently developing. Kudos to him, and best wishes too! :)

If the nurse allowed your child to take a drug and there was any adverse reaction, the lawsuit potential is huge. And there has to be that potential to make professional people act carefully at all times. There is often a good reason for the rules that frustrate us later.

If my son were at home, I would, of course, give him the otc meds.

At school, I want him to have the same access to the otc meds, as I see fit.

The exact same way the school nurse handles all other meds. By instruction. There is no difference.

It should not take a doctor for this. It should be my right. I am the person on this planet the most concerned with his wellbeing, and it should NEVER be expected that I would act otherwise. The state is not the ward of my child, and DOES NOT know better than me, and absolutely does not care more than I do.

My care for my son should not be second guessed, downplayed or insulted. IN the public school system, it is. Systematically. It does not help.

I am very tired of jumping through hoops to take care of myself and my family, just to make the insurance situation more easy for official entities, such as public schools. If they can't take the hit for doing something wrong in this regard, something I can do so simply at home, then I question their ability to handle many, many issues having to do with children.

Shall we allow them to keep our children safe by keeping them in padded rooms, with no playground and no recess? That is where this argument goes, and I don't buy it. Would that be "easier" for them, and if so, is it ideal?

No

There is often NOT a good reason, not good for US, for rules. It's a cya exercise. I'm really tired of them spending so much time protecting themselves, while we learn more and more about violence in school. It's my kids I want protected. If they aren't up to the job, I think they shouldn't be doing it.

But OH how they enjoy calling up and carping at you for not following the rules, with authoritarian tone, and all the law on their side. As if I too need education. Yes, it's the law. Now bow down, bow to the law. It's for your own good.

Because I was up to no good? Hardly.

if there was ever an administration who could care less about protestors, it's BushCo. Massive boycotts/buy-cotts are the only power we have left. Changing the economic landscape!

discussed here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1395238


The Politics of Victimization
(Mel Gilles, who has worked for many years as an advocate for victims of domestic abuse, draws some parallels between her work and the reaction of many Democrats to the election.-- Mathew Gross)
http://mathewgross.com/blog/archives/001041.html

Watch Dan Rather apologize for not getting his facts straight, humiliated before the eyes of America, voluntarily undermining his credibility and career of over thirty years. Observe Donna Brazille squirm as she is ridiculed by Bay Buchanan, and pronounced irrelevant and nearly non-existent. Listen as Donna and Nancy Pelosi and Senator Charles Schumer take to the airwaves saying that they have to go back to the drawing board and learn from their mistakes and try to be better, more likable, more appealing, have a stronger message, speak to morality. Watch them awkwardly quote the bible, trying to speak the new language of America. Surf the blogs, and read the comments of dismayed, discombobulated, confused individuals trying to figure out what they did wrong. Hear the cacophony of voices, crying out, “Why did they beat me?”

And then ask anyone who has ever worked in a domestic violence shelter if they have heard this before. They will tell you, every single day.

The answer is quite simple. They beat us because they are abusers. We can call it hate. We can call it fear. We can say it is unfair. But we are looped into the cycle of violence, and we need to start calling the dominating side what they are: abusive. And we need to recognize that we are the victims of verbal, mental, and even, in the case of Iraq, physical violence.

As victims we can’t stop asking ourselves what we did wrong. We can’t seem to grasp that they will keep hitting us and beating us as long as we keep sticking around and asking ourselves what we are doing to deserve the beating.
-- much more --


And what the heck, as long as I'm dipping into the files, here's an absolutely fascinating read on the Repugs' hypermasculinity:

discussed here:
Ducat connects Gannon, Arnold and Hyper Masculinity
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3206161

March 2, 2005
Stephen J. Ducat Dissects "Anxious Masculinity," Making Sense of America's Strutting, in a Psychoanalytic Kind of Way
A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/05/03/int05011.html



I saw the Republican National Convention as essentially a hyper-masculine strut-fest. The real point of the convention was to make John Kerry their woman.... They had already done that with John Edwards by dubbing him the “Breck girl.” And Arnold Schwarzenegger went on to proclaim that any men who were anxious about the loss of jobs under the reign of George W. Bush were, as he put it, “economic girlie-men.” The inference was that Democratic candidates who were always whining about pink slips may as well be wearing pink slips.

-- much more --