Sep 26
Anyone know what to make of this? Are we headed toward a police state? How should we respond to this? What would you do in this situation? Please comment.
TruthMission
Search for truth and discuss difficult issues in a safe place
Follow me
September 26th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
It’s hard to argue on the side of the police here. At a major summit like this, there clearly needs to be a lot of extra security. But, it seems like police can’t distinguish between real threats and college kids. It’s a good thing social media exists and we’re able to post videos like this on YouTube, and experiences to Twitter.
Of course, there have also been a lot of incidents with college kids testing authority figures and citing civil liberties (e.g. “Don’t taze me, bro!”). I’m not saying that this is one of those incidents, but there were probably some kids testing the waters in Pitt. They don’t seem to have common sense that yelling about civil liberties to cops isn’t going to get them anywhere.
September 27th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Does anyone know for a fact that someone in that crowd wasn’t a student, but a fanatic who could have used a backpack to bomb, maim, and in addition to injury, make our country an accessory if any one of the G-20 representatives and been injured or killed?
Get a grip. We have a lot of freedom, but we walk a very thin line because of this freedom — we are an open country compared to others. We have, unfortunately, young men and women who have terrorist interests right here in the heart of our country, because we are willing to be open and embrace those escaping terrorism.
But we must understand that we, with our free speech and right to gather, must still understand that we must be careful….99.99 percent innocent that .01 may be the trigger.
No one likes it. But we do have to do what we must do to ensure that we and visiting dignitaries are safe.
It’s sick, isn’t it ???? Sad too.
I am the first to remember and embrace our country and freedom of only years ago. And it breaks my heart. But the reality is YES, THERE ARE THOSE OUT THERE, who in the name of God would devastate our country at the cost of innocent lives.
I’m against to much government rule, but considering the times, we must understand, because many well trained counter Americans are Americans, and will stop at nothing to destroy our country.
Old saying…. A face doesn’t tell you if a person has aids. And a face among a crowd of student demonstrators won’t tell you if there is an assassin in that crowd. It’s sad but true.
As an American, I am completely pro free speech , the right to gather and the entire constitution. But we have to be aware during these times. To blindly ignore what anti-American terrorists will do will not do.
September 28th, 2009 at 7:18 am
“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” -Thomas Jefferson
There is more then one video during the G20 in different areas of the city. You will hear the police declare that “this has been declared an unlawful assembly”. This is unconstitutional.
I think the threat of too much government and power is much worse then the threat of terrorism.
September 28th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
I don’t agree that the threat of too much government and power is much worse than the threat of terrorism.
I do believe that the threat of too much government and power is equal to the threat of terrorism.
September 29th, 2009 at 10:10 am
It might depend on how you define terrorism… domestic or international? Domestic terrorists are a much bigger threat. 250/335 terrorism incidents between 1980 and 2000 were carried out by American citizens. While 9/11 obviously sticks out, let’s not forget about Oklahoma City, which was the deadliest act of terrorism before 9/11.
September 29th, 2009 at 11:44 am
I wonder what the total death toll of governments is and how that would match up with the death toll of terrorism?
September 29th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Well, what factors would you count in that–Do you count war casualties (our own soldiers and other countries?), death sentences, police? It seems tough to calculate and potentially very subjective if one is going to remove deaths one thinks are justified. Some would call the Iraq and Afghanistan wars justified, while others would not.
Also, I think you need to define “too much government” and “power”… Are you referring to power over its citizens or world influence?
September 30th, 2009 at 7:57 am
I was referring to going towards an authoritarian government here in the U.S. but I also don’t like the growth of our empire either.
My point was that relative to other things terrorism is a small threat. I believe that more people in the U.S. are killed by car accidents in one year then deaths by terrorism throughout the world in that same year.
I would rather have my liberties and risk terrorism then have no liberties and be “protected” from it.
September 30th, 2009 at 9:04 am
I guess then you would need to calculate deaths per capita caused by genocide, (increased) terrorism, and civil wars… it would still be tough to calculate. But there’s no doubt that authoritarian governments would have higher totals than democracies. Therefore, I don’t think it’s necessary to run those calculations, unless you want to demonstrate how much better democracies are (generally).
That said, there is obviously a stigma right now surrounding the far right with their Fox News-incited tea parties and calls of government conspiracies/a secret agenda of socialism. And, I think that stigma is justified. How is a country that has, since nearly its inception, had a foreign policy of spreading democracy going to turn around become socialist?
That said, it’s essential to our survival as a democracy to allow opinions from the whole political spectrum. That’s why I listen to the far right as much as the far left, and why I pay attention to your blog.
September 30th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
We are actually suppose to be a republic. You should watch the video I posted awhile back. I think it was called The American Form of Government.
I am for our government being a republic not a democracy.
And if you have a democracy that just means the majority rule. If you have the majority that want socialistic programs then we will.
For the record I don’t often watch Fox.
Socialism means the government controls all means of production.
If we got a public option that could put all other private options out of business and that could easily equate to a government takeover of health care. That is hardly all means of production but I can see how some people would think that is the agenda.
There are a lot of different possible scenarios that can come from having an over sized government. None of which I am fond of.
Don’t bother with the calculations. It would be too difficult.
So what do you consider me on you spectrum?
September 30th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
I’ll have to watch that video, but from my understanding it is not known exactly what our founding fathers meant by “republic”. “Republic” in the US has come to mean “representative democracy” (much like calling “football” in the US “soccer”), where citizens elect government officials. I agree that we should have a representative democracy (though I am in favor of NPVIC for eliminating the Electoral College–I think the popular vote should decide all elections).
If a self-sustainable public option can be created, then I don’t see what the problem is. I don’t care who gives me my health insurance… I care about how it is delivered. As I stated before, I’m in favor of single-payer with all private health insurance companies. But, I will choose to believe our elected administration that claims that single-payer would be impossible to implement. The bottom line is that we need to get the power away from health insurance companies and into our own hands. In theory, the self-sustaining, no-agenda, government-operated health insurance company forces them to compete. And, if they can’t compete with a self-sustaining independent company, then there are probably some shady practices going on. Anyway…
I don’t know all of your views, but based on comments and posts, I’d say you are “conservative” on a “very conservative” to “very liberal” scale. That’s because you are in favor of limited government but also a non-interventionist foreign policy (which both should be conservative, but the latter has been liberal since Vietnam). I would rate myself as “liberal” because I am skeptical of government actions, but I do understand that sometimes we have to spend more money upfront to see a greater return later. I am also very liberal when it comes to social issues (e.g. gay marriage, abortion).
September 30th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
I think the popular vote should decide too.
“But, I will choose to believe our elected administration that claims that single-payer would be impossible to implement.”
- I haven’t heard Obama say this. We seem to continue a path away from a true free market and that will cause problems.
“The bottom line is that we need to get the power away from health insurance companies and into our own hands.”
- Handing it over to government is not the way to do it. We need to get rid of all government subsidies to corporations and any regulations that make it harder for smaller companies to compete.
“In theory, the self-sustaining, no-agenda, government-operated health insurance company forces them to compete.”
It might serve in a way as competition if the plans were prices just right but if a government option is too cheap they will put the “competition” out of business and I don’t think that is really a good thing. I would prefer new efficient companies to put old inefficient companies out of business. But that can’t happen right now because of government interference in the free market.
Anyway…
I am against abortion because I believe it is the same as murder. You are focusing on the rights of the mother while I am focusing on the rights of the child.
At what point would you consider the fetus life and worthy of human rights? Are partial birth abortions right?
October 1st, 2009 at 8:44 am
- I haven’t heard Obama say this. We seem to continue a path away from a true free market and that will cause problems.
Then, you clearly haven’t been paying attention. Throughout the campaign and the health insurance debate, Obama has consistently said that he supports a single-payer system if starting from scratch, but we cannot implement one with our current infrastructure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDAPLb-HVcM
And here’s the text from his health care speech:
- Handing it over to government is not the way to do it. We need to get rid of all government subsidies to corporations and any regulations that make it harder for smaller companies to compete.
I think there’s a major difference between giving government power to control our health care (like the UK) and giving the government the ability to control our insurance (like Canada). I think we can agree that as long as private insurance companies compete with the public plan, we’ll be in good shape. If the public plan is really that much cheaper (which if it’s self-sustaining, that would be impressive), then hopefully private plans will make necessary adjustments and still compete. If it puts some money-hungry private health insurance companies out of business, good for it. There just needs to be some lasting competition to ensure competitive rates. That’s the goal set out by the Obama Administration. To me, it seems that single-payer is a better way to ensure that private companies stay in business and have low, competitive rates.
My opinion on abortion (and assisted suicide for that matter) stems from the fact that we can’t prevent what people do. The suicide barriers on bridges exist for a reason. If abortion is illegal, women will find another way to get rid of their child. I believe Switzerland has it right–they allow abortions in the first trimester and have a lower abortion rate than the US. Switzerland also has organizations that provide suicide counseling and assisted suicide. Most citizens opt against assisted suicide after the counseling. Switzerland may also have a good healthcare model for the US to follow (but that’s questionable, as they are said to be considering a switch to single-payer):
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92106731
October 3rd, 2009 at 9:12 am
I just watched “The American Form of Government”… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE
Nothing really to take issue with there, but it should be noted that there are many different types of oligarchies and republics. Of course, I’m in favor of maintaining our republic. Though, with the corporate influence in recent years, I would argue that we have leaned toward an oligarchy for the past 30 years.
By the way, I would encourage you to see Michael Moore’s Capitalism when you get a chance and provide a response on the site. There was one scene that was not very funny and hard to watch (it was a scene with Bush giving a speech and he adds hellish animations in the background), but I think he sums up the opinions of the left pretty well. He also criticizes both republicans (Reagan for starting an era of corporate influence in government; Bush for many reasons) and democrats (Clinton for deregulating the banking industry; representatives for voting for the bailout). Facts are provided on his site. My major problem with the movie was that it left me feeling kind of hopeless. There were only a few suggestions in the credits about what to do about our current problems (including a note about Pennies for Pilots)…
October 3rd, 2009 at 7:19 pm
I don’t think I will watch the movie. I am sure there is plenty of corporate greed and wrongdoing. But the problem is our government has given favors to companies that have lobbyists. I believe there is not authority in the constitution for that type of stuff.
My ideal society would allow companies to become large and profitable because they have delivered the best product at the best price not because they have the best lobbyists.
This movie I am sure will put the blame on capitalism. I would put the blame on government interventionism.
Take high salaries for example. If a CEO is making 5 million a year making staples. Another company can come along with a cheaper product and put the larger company out of business unless they start paying their top management less money.
When large corporations have government subsidies and regulations that make it hard for newcomers to enter the market then you have an example of government intervention that distorts the free market and allows corporations to become larger, more powerful, etc.
I will tell you this. If you read Economics in One Lesson I will watch this movie if you want.
October 3rd, 2009 at 7:31 pm
- I haven’t heard Obama say this. We seem to continue a path away from a true free market and that will cause problems.
“Then, you clearly haven’t been paying attention.”
Just saying I haven’t heard it. I wasn’t trying to claim he didn’t. I don’t actually have a TV. I just subscribe to various blogs and watch videos on youtube, etc.
“I think there’s a major difference between giving government power to control our health care (like the UK) and giving the government the ability to control our insurance (like Canada).”
- I am sure there is but I am against giving more power to the federal government on any level. I think they have way too much and they need to reduce their size significantly.
“I think we can agree that as long as private insurance companies compete with the public plan, we’ll be in good shape.”
- I don’t consider this ideal but it might work out to be ok in the short run.
“If the public plan is really that much cheaper (which if it’s self-sustaining, that would be impressive), then hopefully private plans will make necessary adjustments and still compete.”
- The problem is that isn’t not real competition. The government can be as cheap as they want and just print, borrow or tax the difference. No company can really compete with that.
“To me, it seems that single-payer is a better way to ensure that private companies stay in business and have low, competitive rates.”
- I guess I don’t understand what single payer means. I thought that meant that the government would be the only insurance company. In that scenario there would be no other competition.
“My opinion on abortion (and assisted suicide for that matter) stems from the fact that we can’t prevent what people do. The suicide barriers on bridges exist for a reason. If abortion is illegal, women will find another way to get rid of their child. I believe Switzerland has it right–they allow abortions in the first trimester and have a lower abortion rate than the US. Switzerland also has organizations that provide suicide counseling and assisted suicide. Most citizens opt against assisted suicide after the counseling. Switzerland may also have a good healthcare model for the US to follow (but that’s questionable, as they are said to be considering a switch to single-payer):
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92106731”
I would agree with you in regards to suicide but not for abortion. I see abortion as different because to me it involves one person killing another person. What is the difference between killing a baby out of the whom and one that is inside the whom? Why is one illegal and the other not? Why does the baby only have rights after it has left the whom?
October 4th, 2009 at 8:33 am
Michael Moore makes the same argument that you just made (lobbyists) but draws a different conclusion… Can you explain how deregulation is a good idea when it led to our current credit crisis? Did we need more deregulation to solve the problem (that seems like adding fuel to the fire)?
Since you said you won’t see the movie, one startling fact it presents is that tax rates on te wealthy used to be very high:
Nobody complained about those rates and the rich were still rich (I am talking the top 1% which currently has 40% of the wealth).
I’ll run to my library and pick the book up this week. I’ll let you know when I do. One big irony with Michael is that he is a big capitalist himself.
It might surprise you to learn that Michael Moore is a lifelong catholic, and even wanted to be a priest. A few preists are interviewed in the movie.
You are mostly correct regarding single-payer. When I said private companies, I should have said private hospitals/clinics. Private insurers would provide supplemental insurace (which is 15% of the industry in Canada). Anyway, I think we have spun our wheels on that issue.
Regarding abortion, I imagine a system just like Switzerland’s assisted suicide. If we can provide mental care to pregnant women then perhaps they will choose to either keep or put their baby up for adoption. The system would save a lot of lives, sometimes 2 for each incident! The problem is that health insurance is expensive and people don’t have access to that care (hey, do you think universal healthcare might solve that?).
October 4th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
I don’t believe deregulation was the cause: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×5115657
Just because taxes were higher at some time doesn’t make it right or good?
I actually have heard that he is a catholic.
A Woman’s Concern is a non-profit organization that we support that counsels women with surprise pregnancies at no cost. I am sure it does save many lives.
October 5th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Just because taxes were higher at some time doesn’t make it right or good
Yes, true. However, Michael Moore was making the point that nothing was wrong. The wealthy were just fine, and the middle-class was thriving… families could be supported by just the father working. Moore places a lot of the blame on Reaganomics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics), which also was an era where the US greatly increased its debt and reduced tax burdens on the wealthy.
I didn’t know about A Woman’s Concern… sounds like a great organization! The problem is that there just doesn’t see to be enough of them, and non-profit organizations usually don’t have the advertising budget to make themselves known to the people who need them most.
I don’t believe deregulation was the cause
The financial crisis is very complicated, and I don’t think radical changes proposed by Austrian economics would have been the best short-term approach. I would have favored a bailout with stricter restrictions… the bailout was rushed and seems to not really had much of an effect. I don’t have time to get sources for this (apologize), but I’m pretty sure most economists agreed that we just couldn’t let banks fail (though they didn’t like the bailout either).
Woods doesn’t blame deregulation because his definition of “deregulation” is different. He claims that true deregulation would mean the banks would be forced to fail (i.e. there would be no Federal Reserve as a safety net). He also argues that it was a “perfect storm” that coincided a normal business cycle. I don’t think there’s any debate that removing lending restrictions (that is, :ahem: regulations) caused the credit crisis. But whether you want to call it “deregulation” or not… that’s different.
I will read Economics in One Lesson, though I will do so as a skeptic of the Austrian School since it is not without criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School#Criticism
In particular, Bryan Caplan stands out to me, as he is a libertarian economist that but has criticized the Austrian School for not being scientifically rigorous.
http://economics.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm
Anyway, I am looking forward to reading more on different schools of economic thought (and I will treat Economics in One Lesson as free-market biased, though I recognize its use as a textbook nation-wide). But, I am entering the field as a skeptic, and due to its seemingly complicated nature, I may leave a skeptic too. I have always found that what usually works best is a mixture.
October 12th, 2009 at 9:39 am
Hi Dave,
Since only the audiobook is available in my library, I ended up just buying the book on Amazon for about $10. I have to get through one baseball book before though (As They See ‘Em about umpires–it’s a great book so far). Maybe I’ll be done by the time it arrives!