[ale] ["Topic"? I don't think it means what you think it means] Re: Incompetent corporate web sites

[wylde bill]

On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 17:25 -0400, William Fragakis wrote:

> We absolve ourselves of any responsibility by referring to it as an
> "entity". These are the people that we've chosen by whatever
> legitimate/corrupt means we at our disposal. Every two to six years, we
> get to make a choice and this is what we've come up with. 
>
> I'm not saying we couldn't make better choices - I think we could. But
> this isn't something that was hoisted upon us by an external force.
> Maybe you didn't vote for this "entity" but enough of your neighbors did
> to put them into place. Maybe your neighbors acted out of ignorance,
> fear corruption or just a view of the world different from yours. We got
> what we (largely) voted for. If we didn't vote for it, we don't enough
> noise like the brave souls in Iran and China who are dying for
> expressing their views.
> 
> Politicians can only be "bought" when we ratify that purchase with our
> own vote. Elections can only be rigged when we acquiesce in the result.


I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.  "Your bike has a flat
tire, but that's your fault for riding it in the first place, so now
it's pointless for you to want to change that tire, even though you have
the tools to do so..."? "Somebody slipped you a Mickey, but it's your
fault for taking the drink in the first place..."?  "Those women taken
in by Ted Bundy's charm deserved what they got.."?  Or are you just
saying you think the system isn't broken and doesn't need to be fixed?

I may be reading the wrong things into what you are saying, but I must
respectfully disagree if you are saying anything analogous to the
hypothetical questions above.

Someone on this list uses a quote by Frank Herbert as part of his sig
that I think is one of the truest true-isms ever spoken by mortal man,
to the effect of:

"Absolute power does not corrupt absolutely, absolute power attracts the
corruptible." And psychopaths are among the most personable of people.

And beyond that, all human beings are imperfect.  Me, you, everyone on
this list, everyone in the state, everyone in the country, everyone on
the planet, and everyone in congress.  Even the best of intentions fall
flat from time to time.

The best thing to remedy all of this, as the founders knew when they
broke the government down into three branches, is to separate the powers
one from another.  Keep the interests of the parties involved separate,
keep collusion between them as difficult as possible, and keep everyone
involved ACCOUNTABLE. 

I agree that the people, as a whole, have made a great many mistakes.  I
will also attest to the fact that many (if not most) politicians have
even served with the best of intentions, and with as much integrity as
they could muster- but I will also assert just as much tyranny has been
been perpetuated by well-intentioned ideologues who thought they were
doing the "right" thing as there has been by those motivated by craft
and guile.  

I say that the people are only culpable, as you suggest, when they allow
either to exist after it has been exposed and they have the means to fix
it.    

I think a system that provides for the basic medical needs of everyone
can be achieved.  Even if some people can afford more care than others.
I do not think anyone can promise you a perfect world, and anyone who
does is either a fool or lying.

I think that Congress has proven it cannot manage such a system, even
with the use of governmental coercion.  It has squandered the funding,
and continues to squander the funding as we interact on this list.  

I propose that any body with the power to excuse itself has an inherent
conflict of interest- whether those interests be motivated by good
intentions or by malice aforethought.

I'm assert that when we pool our money and resources to achieve a goal,
the direction to that goal must be guided by people who do not have a
conflict of interest.  

I believe that such goals can be achieved without a gun put to one's
head. Which is all a government which enacts criminal codes does, in the
final analysis: and this by design. Some people need a gun held to their
heads at times.  Sometimes the trigger even needs to be pulled (where
most people disagree is on when such force should be used). 

I believe that such goals MUST be achieved without using a body which
puts the gun to your head, because any body which can decide when and
how the gun should be used can surely decide not to point the gun at
their own heads.

I believe that the vast majority of people would voluntarily support
such goals and enroll in such a project.  Such a desire kept FDR in
office for 12 years, and most of the population (at least 75%) were 
still with work and paying their bills at the very height of the great
depression, and weren't looking for a handout. 

I think the only people who would oppose such a voluntary union would be
people making money off the current insurance system, those who believe
the "conservative" FUD that *any* form of collective health care system 
would lead to a decreased quality of service, and those who believe the
"liberal" FUD that rich people wouldn't "pay their fair share" towards
such a goal.

I think a responsible citizen should be working against the FUD spread
by all three of these influences.  

I think a great step in achieving the goal of giving everybody medical
care would be to create such a union, allow those who want to opt-in to
opt-in, and that such monies which are currently due to those who have
become eligible for the current system provided by FICA be funneled a
month in advance through such a fund which is interest-bearing in order
to at least BEGIN to take the burden off our children and their
children, and pay back the monies Congress "borrowed" from the FICA
funding.  After those goals are achieved (i.e. the creation of the
trust, and the repayment of the FICA debt to the people), the Federal
government should have no more congress with the trust than monitor it
for criminal activity.  Such a trust should, like a church, be immune
from taxation and the dictates of congress. 


-- 
"I've been such a fool, Vassili. Man will always be a man. There is no
new man. We tried so hard to create a society that was equal, where
there'd be nothing to envy your neighbour. But there's always something
to envy. A smile, a friendship, something you don't have and want to
appropriate. In this world, even a Soviet one, there will always be rich
and poor. Rich in gifts, poor in gifts. Rich in love, poor in love." --
Commisar Danilov, "Enemy at the Gates"