A humble suggestion

[millennium_bard]

Or maybe it could be a story idea.

Let us set aside one day per year as Politician Approval Day.

On this day every holder of elected office, no matter how trivial or lofty, would be made to walk through the city/town/etc. where they hold office sans bodyguards or any form of security whatsoever.

On this one day only no one shooting, knifing, beating etc. a politician could be charged with any crime.

If the politician survives the walk, he/she gets to keep their office.

 

[sr71plt]

Sure. Let's have a day for Laz-y-boy Monday morning quarterback citizen too.

 

[millennium_bard]

Heh, I've been on both sides.
I am a voter, and have voted in every election since I turned 18.
And I have held office too. 3 terms on the city council.
Personally I doubt that I would have survived such a walk in my first 2 terms.
(Thank the gods I have grown up since I left office )

I am still politically active as much as my health permits.
I attend every city council meeting and I make it a point to visit personally with my state and federal representatives at least once a year.
I go prepared with notes and with a clear idea of what I want to say and the data to back up what i say to them.

The current city council thinks that I am a royal pain in their collective ass. but they do listen to what I, (or nowadays the person who speaks for me since I am unable to speak aloud.) and they take me seriously.

Are you politically active?

 

[amicus]

Covered all them critters as a newspaper and radio reporter, you couldn't pay me enough to ever do it again!

Amicus...

 

[sr71plt]

Are you politically active?

Not for most of my life. I was a federal official, which meant no political activity/public posturing whatsoever. Before that, yes, quite active. My uncle was a congressman; my grandmother a lieutenant governor (and her, umm, boyfriend a U.S. senator). Since retiring from the federal government, I've been an election official and worked on my brother-in-law's county supervisor campaigns--but nothing beyond that.

Just don't think those holding public office and making a run at trying to get it all balanced are any worse than those sitting back and criticizing and contributing nothing more than that.

 

[millennium_bard]

Not for most of my life. I was a federal official, which meant no political activity/public posturing whatsoever. Before that, yes, quite active. My uncle was a congressman; my grandmother a lieutenant governor (and her, umm, boyfriend a U.S. senator). Since retiring from the federal government, I've been an election official and worked on my brother-in-law's county supervisor campaigns--but nothing beyond that.

Just don't think those holding public office and making a run at trying to get it all balanced are any worse than those sitting back and criticizing and contributing nothing more than that.

I agree.

 

[amicus]

Just don't think those holding public office and making a run at trying to get it all balanced are any worse than those sitting back and criticizing and contributing nothing more than that.

That is a bit snobbish, even from you, sr71, most people never see the inside of a government office unless paying taxes or fines.

There are very few elected officials who should perform as the public servants they are instead of the boorish taskmasters they become once in office.

The other ninety five percent are hired bean counters, mainly women, who live better than most citizens and Lord it over all as if they were God's gift to mankind, issuing licenses and such and determining life changing events for common people, while existing off tax monies from real people.

To hell with most of them may they rot.

amicus...

 

[rgraham666]

Or maybe it could be a story idea.

Let us set aside one day per year as Politician Approval Day.

On this day every holder of elected office, no matter how trivial or lofty, would be made to walk through the city/town/etc. where they hold office sans bodyguards or any form of security whatsoever.

On this one day only no one shooting, knifing, beating etc. a politician could be charged with any crime.

If the politician survives the walk, he/she gets to keep their office.

And you are willing to pay the taxes for new elections to replace all these people?

Because you know almost none of them will survive. It doesn't even have to be someone who dislikes or disagrees with the politician. It could just be some nut who realizes, "Hey! I can kill this person and get away with it. Sweet!"

 

[millennium_bard]

And you are willing to pay the taxes for new elections to replace all these people?

Because you know almost none of them will survive. It doesn't even have to be someone who dislikes or disagrees with the politician. It could just be some nut who realizes, "Hey! I can kill this person and get away with it. Sweet!"

Well I said it might work better as a story idea...

 

[oggbashan]

I'm a sort of politician.

I walk the streets of my town every day.

People know who I am and talk to me about current issues.

Sometimes I get abuse but I deal with it.

Our local councillors and our Member of Parliament walk the streets of my town. They are known and talked to. (sometimes shouted at )

Most of the UK is like that.

Og

 

[amicus]

That is an interesting post, Ogg, very much so.

I doubt metropolitan London or Liverpool or any other sizeable city is like that. Then again, I recall stories of the 'Burroughs' of New York and other cities with 'precincts' that might have been viewed in that manner, very up close and personal.

I found quite the same attitude towards me as a news reporter after a few years on the job, with identical responses.

My observations of late are somewhat different. Perhaps it is an 'American' thing, I can't know, but I compare visiting a public officials office quite like visiting a doctor's office anymore. Filled with harried, overworked people with no time to spare for small talk or congenial conversation.

Long waiting periods, no solutions, patent remedies, get this one out of the way and deal with the next and the next...and so on.

Further, I have found that as government becomes more influential in wider and wider circles, it becomes near impossible to even find the right official to deal with and one can spend hours and even days before arriving at the proper offical office and then to find there is no solution for your problem.

Not being necessarily pessimistic, Ogg, but as with an earlier reference that you dismissed, the one about books on totalitarianism, it feels like that slippery slope to me.

Amicus...

 

[oggbashan]

That is an interesting post, Ogg, very much so.

I doubt metropolitan London or Liverpool or any other sizeable city is like that. Then again, I recall stories of the 'Burroughs' of New York and other cities with 'precincts' that might have been viewed in that manner, very up close and personal.

I found quite the same attitude towards me as a news reporter after a few years on the job, with identical responses.

My observations of late are somewhat different. Perhaps it is an 'American' thing, I can't know, but I compare visiting a public officials office quite like visiting a doctor's office anymore. Filled with harried, overworked people with no time to spare for small talk or congenial conversation.

Long waiting periods, no solutions, patent remedies, get this one out of the way and deal with the next and the next...and so on.

Further, I have found that as government becomes more influential in wider and wider circles, it becomes near impossible to even find the right official to deal with and one can spend hours and even days before arriving at the proper offical office and then to find there is no solution for your problem.

Not being necessarily pessimistic, Ogg, but as with an earlier reference that you dismissed, the one about books on totalitarianism, it feels like that slippery slope to me.

Amicus...

Amicus,

I visit our local council office at least twice a week. There is usually a queue of two or three people but I rarely have to wait more than ten minutes (and that's not because they know me).

My Member of Parliament's office is in the next town. If I telephone, email or visit in person I get a response. It isn't always the answer I want, of course, but I get a courteous hearing. Any of our MP's constituents is likely to get what help our MP and his staff can give. I appreciate that not all UK MPs are as good as he is but most do try.

I get a dozen or so requests a week and I can usually direct the person to the right department and level of local government and possibly even a named person. Most of my time is taken with calming irate people down and getting to what the real problem is.

Whenever I've had dealings with local government in other towns I've found that the staff are prepared to help and they are usually willing to go beyond the bare minimum. Finance is always a problem that is difficult to overcome and government and local government will always have limited resources.

Two of my daughters live and work in London. They find that their local government bodies are like the ones I deal with - helpful and courteous. When they can't help they say so and don't make unrealistic promises.

The bodies that are difficult to deal with are the national ones, particularly the Quangos (Quasi-autonomous non-governmental bodies) that mushroomed under Tony Blair's government. Unless you know your way around the relevant department it can seem like an unfathomable maze but in recent years their websites have made it much easier to find where to start. I'm pleased to say that I've managed to extract tens of thousands of pounds from Quangos for my town and over the past twenty years I've been involved in a minor way in obtaining millions of pounds from Quangos, Government Departments and European Union institutions.

Knowledge of how such institutions work is power. Obtaining and using that knowledge is my retirement hobby and has been an interest for over forty years. It helped that my father and other relations had been doing similar things long before I started. In fact as I trace my family history I find that my ancestors had been using the governmental systems to benefit their communities since the Middle Ages.

Knowing where to go and how to approach the executive bodies can pay off.

Og

PS. Our Home Secretary recently visited her constituency accompanied by a police escort. The general reaction of Members of Parliament from all parties was to ridicule her. They don't need policemen, nor secret servicemen, when they visit their towns (or hers).

 

[sr71plt]

That is a bit snobbish, even from you, sr71, most people never see the inside of a government office unless paying taxes or fines.

There are very few elected officials who should perform as the public servants they are instead of the boorish taskmasters they become once in office.

The other ninety five percent are hired bean counters, mainly women, who live better than most citizens and Lord it over all as if they were God's gift to mankind, issuing licenses and such and determining life changing events for common people, while existing off tax monies from real people.

To hell with most of them may they rot.

amicus...

I see nothing snobbish in it at all. I do see in your posting the sterotypical scapegoating by the "do nothing" armchair critic.

 

[amicus]

Ogg, this is not intended as a criticism of you personally, not at all and please do not take it as such.

But you inadvertently, I think, exposed precisely what I abhor about excessive government.

The tone, if not the letter and spirit of your missive, portrays all things happening through and by government. Grants, permissions, helpful, friendly patronizing big brother overseeing of the masses.

Most people in America have no intercourse with government and any level and do not wish to. Government is seen as in interference an obstacle to overcome in the pursuit of meaningful activity.

I leave it there, perhaps for others to take up if they wish.

amicus...

 

[DesertPirate]

Ogg, this is not intended as a criticism of you personally, not at all and please do not take it as such.

But you inadvertently, I think, exposed precisely what I abhor about excessive government.

The tone, if not the letter and spirit of your missive, portrays all things happening through and by government. Grants, permissions, helpful, friendly patronizing big brother overseeing of the masses.

Most people in America have no intercourse with government and any level and do not wish to. Government is seen as in interference an obstacle to overcome in the pursuit of meaningful activity.

I leave it there, perhaps for others to take up if they wish.

amicus...

I think most people have forgotten the true American Spirit: If not explicitly forbidden it is OK, so try it and have fun. That is where creativity comes from.

 

[oggbashan]

Ogg, this is not intended as a criticism of you personally, not at all and please do not take it as such.

But you inadvertently, I think, exposed precisely what I abhor about excessive government.

The tone, if not the letter and spirit of your missive, portrays all things happening through and by government. Grants, permissions, helpful, friendly patronizing big brother overseeing of the masses.

Most people in America have no intercourse with government and any level and do not wish to. Government is seen as in interference an obstacle to overcome in the pursuit of meaningful activity.

I leave it there, perhaps for others to take up if they wish.

amicus...

Amicus,

It illustrates what I have been trying to convey for some time - that US and UK attitudes to some things are mutually incomprehensible. We make speak a similar language but some concepts of society are almost impossible to translate.

Many US citizens cannot understand a welfare state or free health care. They do not want the government to help their weaker members of society.

In the UK if someone is unable to work through illness or disability, or even through lack of employment, that person will be supported by some arm of the government no matter how severe their needs might be.

It is almost inconceivable to many UK citizens that in the US people cannot afford to be ill or can be forced to live in a shanty town. The only homeless people here are those who choose to be homeless and refuse help.

Health insurance here is a lifestyle choice - if you can afford it and want it you can get it but you might choose to spend your money on something else.

You and I have been talking past each other for a long time. I try to understand your position. I don't think you understand mine. My wider family has painful memories of the impact of the Depression when people could starve on the streets and World War 2 when anyone could be made homeless by enemy action in seconds (and World War 1 - both my parents, then children, had their homes were destroyed by Zeppelin bombs). In World War 1 and the 1930s no one would or could help. During and after World War 2 parts of my family had housing provided by the state because their homes had been completely destroyed in the Nazi blitz.

The Continental US has never suffered destruction on the scale inflicted on Europe and the UK in World War 2. When thousands of hard-working families could see their homes and possessions destroyed in a single night, apart from the loss of life the idea that no one would help would have made the damage much harder to bear. Neighbours helped each other. We see the state helping as no more than good-neighbourliness writ large.

I know that some in the US see the "guvment" as their enemy. Maybe the US guvment is. The UK government isn't the people's enemy. No UK political party would change our welfare state in any major way because the concept is almost universally supported. We may moan about details and delivery but not about the broad idea of it.

What Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama are suggesting for health provision as part of their campaign would sell here if it didn't already exist. Whether it will sell in the US? I doubt it. Too many people think as you do. I don't think you are wrong in your context. I do think you are wrong when you suggest that in the UK and wider Europe we are manipulated by socialist or marxist or communist ideologies. We have a different history and live in a different society.

Og

 

[sr71plt]

Amicus,

It illustrates what I have been trying to convey for some time - that US and UK attitudes to some things are mutually incomprehensible. We make speak a similar language but some concepts of society are almost impossible to translate.

Many US citizens cannot understand a welfare state or free health care. They do not want the government to help their weaker members of society.

In the UK if someone is unable to work through illness or disability, or even through lack of employment, that person will be supported by some arm of the government no matter how severe their needs might be.

It is almost inconceivable to many UK citizens that in the US people cannot afford to be ill or can be forced to live in a shanty town. The only homeless people here are those who choose to be homeless and refuse help.

Health insurance here is a lifestyle choice - if you can afford it and want it you can get it but you might choose to spend your money on something else.

You and I have been talking past each other for a long time. I try to understand your position. I don't think you understand mine. My wider family has painful memories of the impact of the Depression when people could starve on the streets and World War 2 when anyone could be made homeless by enemy action in seconds (and World War 1 - both my parents, then children, had their homes were destroyed by Zeppelin bombs). In World War 1 and the 1930s no one would or could help. During and after World War 2 parts of my family had housing provided by the state because their homes had been completely destroyed in the Nazi blitz.

The Continental US has never suffered destruction on the scale inflicted on Europe and the UK in World War 2. When thousands of hard-working families could see their homes and possessions destroyed in a single night, apart from the loss of life the idea that no one would help would have made the damage much harder to bear. Neighbours helped each other. We see the state helping as no more than good-neighbourliness writ large.

I know that some in the US see the "guvment" as their enemy. Maybe the US guvment is. The UK government isn't the people's enemy. No UK political party would change our welfare state in any major way because the concept is almost universally supported. We may moan about details and delivery but not about the broad idea of it.

What Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama are suggesting for health provision as part of their campaign would sell here if it didn't already exist. Whether it will sell in the US? I doubt it. Too many people think as you do. I don't think you are wrong in your context. I do think you are wrong when you suggest that in the UK and wider Europe we are manipulated by socialist or marxist or communist ideologies. We have a different history and live in a different society.

Og

Yes, that's what I found from years of residence in Europe--and I find it much more sensible and preferable to what I find in the States.

 

[amicus]

Many US citizens cannot understand a welfare state or free health care. They do not want the government to help their weaker members of society.

In the UK if someone is unable to work through illness or disability, or even through lack of employment, that person will be supported by some arm of the government no matter how severe their needs might be.

It is almost inconceivable to many UK citizens that in the US people cannot afford to be ill or can be forced to live in a shanty town. The only homeless people here are those who choose to be homeless and refuse help.

~~~

Thank you Oggbashan for laying out your thoughts in such easy to understand and patient tones.

On the surface, one can read a damning indictment of crass Americanism and Capitalism that appears repugnant to all. Well done.

I do not and have never, taken lightly the devastation of Europe during the wars and aftermath of the 20th century, nor the dread of a nuclear war and another invasion by Soviet forces throughout Europe.

You are accurate in pointing out the North America has escaped such devastation, that cannot be denied.

As you choose to bring in history as supportive of your contentions, I choose to do the same.

I suggest that many European nations, 'Empires', were forced to acknowledge a power shift during world war two. With the loss of Singapore and indeed all of Asia as Colonies, Great Britain became just a small Island, the Spanish, French and Dutch were diminished to regional players and the world stage was occupied by others.

When the Soviet Union became a Nuclear and a world power in the late 1940's, all of Europe, as you acknowledged in another post, came under the protective defensive umbrella/barrier of the United States Military.

The defense of Berlin, the Marshall plan that revitalized Europe, are no doubt seen as further degradations of the once Empire Nations of Europe. An entire mindset change followed as former powerful states became mere satellites in world affairs.

In reality, circumstances dictated that these nations begin to look inward and not out as a means to solve the many problems they faced. I understand that.

I cannot imagine the scenario should North Americans be faced with that same reality, those same circumstances of becoming a 'has been' in world affairs.

You, yourself, pointed to events in the years following the war, that were implemented and failed and changed over time; the Nationalization (confiscation) of private into public enterprises.

I have recently been viewing two television series, "The Revolution" and "John Adams", a chronicle of the times and events of the war of Independence from Britain and the Monarchy. I continue to be amazed that the upstart colonists were able to survive when then entire revolution hung by a slender thread a dozen times during 1776 and 1777.

I am also amazed that the startling new concepts of Independence from a Monarchy and the Church and the establishment of the concept of Individual life, liberty and property, managed to survive those who were opposed to such new and revolutionary ideas.

Further amazed that through three centuries we have been able to cling to a vestige of those grand ideas of human freedom and still have an opportunity to rescue them.

Something that 'D'Tocqueville (misspelled no doubt), discovered on his history writing tour of America, was how well fellow Americans came to each other's aid without the prompt of government officials. He was stupified and predicted it could not last.

Your total and complete misunderstanding of the American way is evidenced by the three paragraphs of yours I copied and pasted at the beginning of this post.

People do reach out and help others in times of need without government assistance built in.

That assistance and help is available in times of natural disaster, as evidenced almost every day of the year in one part of this vast country or another as local, state and federal agencies rush to help.

Our social services and safety net features are there and in place, if needed, but are not made a part of daily existence.

All of history will show you that once a people become dependent upon government for assistance, they require more and more.

Providing the basic needs for people in general diminishes their ability to solve their own problems, this too has strong evidence everywhere.

I suggest that Europeans in general have been beaten into submission by circumstances and have put aside their individual hopes and dreams and settled for a second class, dependent existence.

If I believed in a God, I would pray to that God, that no such disaster ever occurs in my beloved home land.

The best and brightest hopes of mankind rest on this Shining City on a Hill, be it Acquinas or King Arthur that envisioned the homeplace of the human spirit. For the time being, it resides in America.

America is in an oven, but Europe, stick a fork in it, is is done and ready for consumption. I foresee a Muslim uprising and war on your horizon.

Tell me I am wrong?

Amicus...

 

[oggbashan]

~~~

I have recently been viewing two television series, "The Revolution" and "John Adams", a chronicle of the times and events of the war of Independence from Britain and the Monarchy. I continue to be amazed that the upstart colonists were able to survive when then entire revolution hung by a slender thread a dozen times during 1776 and 1777.

I am also amazed that the startling new concepts of Independence from a Monarchy and the Church and the establishment of the concept of Individual life, liberty and property, managed to survive those who were opposed to such new and revolutionary ideas.

1. The American War of Independence could not have been successful without the active and powerful aid of the French MONARCHY. The success of that war owed more to the French than is generally admitted. If Britain had not been fighting the French, the Declaration of independence would have been a useless piece of paper.

2. You underestimate the opposition in Britain to that war - much stronger than internal US opposition to the Vietnam War. The war was started and continued by an unpopular political party.

~~~Further amazed that through three centuries we have been able to cling to a vestige of those grand ideas of human freedom and still have an opportunity to rescue them.

Something that 'D'Tocqueville (misspelled no doubt), discovered on his history writing tour of America, was how well fellow Americans came to each other's aid without the prompt of government officials. He was stupified and predicted it could not last.

Your total and complete misunderstanding of the American way is evidenced by the three paragraphs of yours I copied and pasted at the beginning of this post.

People do reach out and help others in times of need without government assistance built in.

That assistance and help is available in times of natural disaster, as evidenced almost every day of the year in one part of this vast country or another as local, state and federal agencies rush to help.

Our social services and safety net features are there and in place, if needed, but are not made a part of daily existence.

Just one word - Katrina. We suffered more in nightly bombing raids in WWII than New Orleans did in Katrina. We helped ourselves and our government helped too - efficiently because our government is truly the representatives of the people which the US government appears not to be.

~~~All of history will show you that once a people become dependent upon government for assistance, they require more and more.

Providing the basic needs for people in general diminishes their ability to solve their own problems, this too has strong evidence everywhere.

I suggest that Europeans in general have been beaten into submission by circumstances and have put aside their individual hopes and dreams and settled for a second class, dependent existence.

If I believed in a God, I would pray to that God, that no such disaster ever occurs in my beloved home land.

I don't agree. I don't consider that I have a second class dependent existence. I live in a community that tries not to let its weaker citizens suffer. There are enough posts in the AH about the effect of lack of health care to make my case.

~~~The best and brightest hopes of mankind rest on this Shining City on a Hill, be it Acquinas or King Arthur that envisioned the homeplace of the human spirit. For the time being, it resides in America.

America is in an oven, but Europe, stick a fork in it, is is done and ready for consumption. I foresee a Muslim uprising and war on your horizon.

Tell me I am wrong?

Amicus...

Yes. You are wrong. The Muslim anger is the product of an indoctrinated minority. The majority of Muslims are law-abiding peaceful citizens who want to live in harmony with their neighbours. There may be conflict within their community and some friction with other communities but in general the Muslims in the UK and in the wider Europe are becoming integrated and adapting to a free society. It is that process of adaptation that causes friction as younger members of the societies adopt some of the freedoms that most of us take for granted and the older members react.

We have generations of examples of immigrant communities becoming part of the mainstream society. So has the US. Why should we be any different? People come to Europe and to the UK because they WANT to be free. They are denied access to the US. Perhaps we are a second-best choice for some but we offer them freedom.

Og

 

[sr71plt]

1
Just one word - Katrina. We suffered more in nightly bombing raids in WWII than New Orleans did in Katrina. We helped ourselves and our government helped too - efficiently because our government is truly the representatives of the people which the US government appears not to be.

Sorry, I don't think this is a good comparison at all. It's way out of whack on period comparison. The worlds of Britain and the States are way more complex and needs-challenged now than in WWII. The world becomes eponentially more complex with the passage of time without basic systems change. Read accounts of the U.S. government response to the San Francisco earthquake of 1904, which was the Katrina of that day. Despite the even greater remoteness of California from the central government than New Orleans is, the response was probably even quicker and more effective in 1904 then you can point to in WWII Britain.

I think Britain would mobilize quicker and more effectively to a contemporary equivalent to Katrina than the United States did, yes, but that's because Britain is a heck of lot smaller, more compact, less complex in its systems, and pulled at by far fewer competing demands than the U.S. government is.

 

[freshface]

Ogg, this is not intended as a criticism of you personally, not at all and please do not take it as such.

But you inadvertently, I think, exposed precisely what I abhor about excessive government.

The tone, if not the letter and spirit of your missive, portrays all things happening through and by government. Grants, permissions, helpful, friendly patronizing big brother overseeing of the masses.

Most people in America have no intercourse with government and any level and do not wish to. Government is seen as in interference an obstacle to overcome in the pursuit of meaningful activity.

I leave it there, perhaps for others to take up if they wish.

amicus...

I'm jumping in a little late, but here goes. When you drive to home this evening, you will most likely drive on smooth roads. The gas you burn will be free of lead. You and your fellow drivers will follow agreed upon rules to keep traffic flowing smoothly. Should there be an accident, your car will do much more to protect you than cars twenty years ago would. The police will respond to control the situation and determine responsibility. If necessary, the fire department will extract you from your car and an ambulance will come to take you to the hospital.

Should you make it home safely, you will have clean water coming from your tap. Regulations for the pipes means that it will not contain lead or other harmful metals. Waste water will be collected and disposed of in a sanitary manner. The food that you eat for dinner is fit for human consumption, minimally contaminated by toxins or microbes. You can be reasonably confident that your television will not catch fire as you watch it tonight. If it does, you can call 911 and the fire department will come to put it out.

Like it or not, every one of us has contact with the government every day. They protect us from the purely capitalistic impulses of business and they provide services that business will not. If you think that unregulated businesses do not behave in purely capitalistic ways, I draw your attention to Enron, and its affect on energy prices in California. Food sanitation laws, worker safety laws, environmental laws, regulatory laws etc. all came about because businesses egregiously demonstrated that without them, they would not act for the common good. If you want to see what happens to the food supply without government, go read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair.

Think government is bad? Look at what happens to places without it. Somalia, Afghanistanin the early '90s, Liberia before Ellen Johnson, many parts of the Congo. The list goes on. Without government to protect us from each other and provide basic services, we descend into anarchy.

 

[foolishlittleone]

As an American who worked in Silicon Valley -- that bastion of the American capitalism -- for a long time (and quite successfully) and then in the UK for several years, I saw both sides of the coin. That is, in SV we made some people rich over night and laid off others without a second thought. In the UK we had to operate quite differently. Because of UK laws, layoffs were an anathema -- difficult, time consuming, legally dicey, and expensive. Some of my American friends were appalled. Why can't we just let this dead weight go? Why won't they work 60 hours a week like our people in California?

For my part, I thought the UK had a better system. Employees looked after their families rather than working themselves to the margins. Surely that's a good thing all around. They also had a level of education that I didn't find in native born Americans. My SV team was 80% and sometimes 90% immigrants from Russia, China, India, and Taiwan. I could rarely find an American with good enough skills to hire -- even at a starting six-figure salary plus stock options and great working conditions (far better than those in the UK).

And no one in the UK worried about losing their healthcare even if they did lose their job.

What I liked about the UK is that everyone seemed to be in it for the long haul, rather than here in the US where both employers and employees are ready to screw each other at the drop of a hat -- because they have to, because there is no safety net of any kind and no sense of shared community other than silly lapel-pin patriotism.

 

[amicus]

freshface
Experienced

~~~

Ah, fresh European socialist meat to dine on, pass the salt and pepper please and the little jar of tabasco...as the meat is a little rancid.

Upton Sinclair, eh, sure, drag out that old harbinger of doom...

As a young boy, I had a cow; I millked that cow, strained the milk, used some for the household, made butter with the cream that rose to the top and bottled a gallon in a glass gallon jug and sold it to neighbors at a competitive price below market prices, (my overhead was nil).

I kept the same customers for years. I did so because my 'product' was of high quality, fresh and clean. There developed an attitude of trust between me, my product and the consumer, all without the heavy hand and taxation by Adolph and his henchmen.

There was another kid on a neighboring farm that tried to do the same thing. But he decided to skim the cream from his milk before selling and added well water to buffer his quantity. Even though he offered his product at an even lower price than I did and took a customer or two for a while, they soon all returned to me and the kid went tits up.

If your Gestapho agencies had been in effect, the second boy would still have corrupted his product and any action they took would have been, 'after the fact', it would not stop him or any other crook from trying to take advantage of a customer, customers, or the market in general.

The entire list of benefits you tediously typed are the product of diligent creators, suppliers, manufacturers and distributors all of whom are most interest in supplying quality products at a competitive price and earning a return on their investments.

The 'regulators' play no functional role at all except to raise prices, add taxation, employ useless public employees and in general slow the efficiency of the market place.

Now, you can research the history of free enterprise and trade between humans or you can continue to believe as you wish, that men, thus, 'Capitalists' are inherently evil and must be controlled to protect the innocent public.

If you, like most on the paltry forum, believe that men are inherently bad to the bone and must be controlled and regulated, then so be it, you join a diminishing fold of fellow believers who still expect God to be waiting at the Pearly Gates.

Such a deal...


Amicus...

 

[amicus]

As an American who worked in Silicon Valley -- that bastion of the American capitalism -- for a long time (and quite successfully) and then in the UK for several years, I saw both sides of the coin. That is, in SV we made some people rich over night and laid off others without a second thought. In the UK we had to operate quite differently. Because of UK laws, layoffs were an anathema -- difficult, time consuming, legally dicey, and expensive. Some of my American friends were appalled. Why can't we just let this dead weight go? Why won't they work 60 hours a week like our people in California?

For my part, I thought the UK had a better system. Employees looked after their families rather than working themselves to the margins. Surely that's a good thing all around. They also had a level of education that I didn't find in native born Americans. My SV team was 80% and sometimes 90% immigrants from Russia, China, India, and Taiwan. I could rarely find an American with good enough skills to hire -- even at a starting six-figure salary plus stock options and great working conditions (far better than those in the UK).

And no one in the UK worried about losing their healthcare even if they did lose their job.

What I liked about the UK is that everyone seemed to be in it for the long haul, rather than here in the US where both employers and employees are ready to screw each other at the drop of a hat -- because they have to, because there is no safety net of any kind and no sense of shared community other than silly lapel-pin patriotism.

~~~

You suffer a misconception about just about everything and I doubt I can shake your faith, but perhaps others, not as entrenched in faith as you, might comprehend.

It is not just 'nature', evolution, that by allowing 'survival of the fittest' to function that homonids became the predominant life form on planet earth, it is a primary law of the universe that competing elements function to weed out the effective and reward those that succeed.

At your level of comprehension, perhaps the genesis of a modern 'rock band' might be an analogy you can grasp.

Let us take the British group, the 'Beatles', as an examply of cutting the deadwood and progressing with 80 hour weeks in practice and performance and travel and investment and managers and venues beyond the homeland that led to their worldwide success.

Free. unfettered competition produces the best product be it rock music or computer mother boards.

Only the bleeding heart weenies of the left dismiss excellence and concentrate on carrying the baggage of inefficient, non producing deadwood and claim that as a virtue.

By corrupting an enterprise with altrusitic motivations, you doom that enterprise to failure in competition with those competing enterprises who will go 'balls to the wall', to achieve excellence.

All of mankind benefits from the natural selection of the best and the brightest, even the woebegone non performers benefit from better products and lower prices for commoditites.

So, take your charitable, benevolent socialism and stuff it up your ass.

Amicus...

 

[sr71plt]

I'm jumping in a little late, but here goes. When you drive to home this evening, you will most likely drive on smooth roads. The gas you burn will be free of lead. You and your fellow drivers will follow agreed upon rules to keep traffic flowing smoothly. Should there be an accident, your car will do much more to protect you than cars twenty years ago would. The police will respond to control the situation and determine responsibility. If necessary, the fire department will extract you from your car and an ambulance will come to take you to the hospital.

Should you make it home safely, you will have clean water coming from your tap. Regulations for the pipes means that it will not contain lead or other harmful metals. Waste water will be collected and disposed of in a sanitary manner. The food that you eat for dinner is fit for human consumption, minimally contaminated by toxins or microbes. You can be reasonably confident that your television will not catch fire as you watch it tonight. If it does, you can call 911 and the fire department will come to put it out.

Like it or not, every one of us has contact with the government every day. They protect us from the purely capitalistic impulses of business and they provide services that business will not. If you think that unregulated businesses do not behave in purely capitalistic ways, I draw your attention to Enron, and its affect on energy prices in California. Food sanitation laws, worker safety laws, environmental laws, regulatory laws etc. all came about because businesses egregiously demonstrated that without them, they would not act for the common good. If you want to see what happens to the food supply without government, go read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair.

Think government is bad? Look at what happens to places without it. Somalia, Afghanistanin the early '90s, Liberia before Ellen Johnson, many parts of the Congo. The list goes on. Without government to protect us from each other and provide basic services, we descend into anarchy.

Absolutely right, Freshface. But that doesn't suit the bias of Amicus and some others so they refuse to process that.