political thoughts - read at own peril!

[RRoller123]

Anyway, I am done with this thread. I get enough of this on FB and in my normal life. This forum has been a source of relaxation and sanity for me and needs to remain that way!

[kmead]

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

Unfortunately those quoting this and then applying interpretation of it are continually missing the meaning which is that you didn't make the road. The road is the shared resource which allows your business to thrive. Thus when he states: " Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that (road). Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet." Read the sentence aloud and the meaning is clear rather than parsing out what the meaning of us, is.

We all benefit from the past investment, often by the government, in things any single business could not and would not invest in. Roads, the Internet, solar, electric cars etc. In order to move things forward for many things a profit seeking entity will not be able to create the solution. So many of the things we all benefit from were the result of government programs: GPS, Radar, microwave tech and so on. All manner of business and personal endeavor benefit from these and thousands of other innovations developed as a result of government investment.

There is much carping about Solara and other failed attempts at getting alternative energy jump started in this country. Does it suck when an investment goes bad? Absolutely but if you don't try to develop a business here then those governments willing to do so elsewhere will and when they own the market for producing solar voltaic solutions and we are at their mercy what will we do then? Trying something is better than following the status quo of only investing in fossil fuels. This one may fail, the next one may fail, but perhaps the next one with the learnings from the past failures will succeed and start a series of businesses that will be successful and private versus publicly funded.

Who here would have invested in DARPANet? The investment in that rat hole over twenty plus years actually did pay off in ways no one could have predicted or fully envisioned. Yet we all use it daily multiple times for pleasure, earnings, buying, banking etc.

So if you have a business you really did not build that road, but you certainly use it.

[surfingfreeman]

Nice points Karl.

[maytag]

I think it's interesting that some seem to believe that because I think the President is Anti-Business, it's because the poor man is so misunderstood.

I've said before, and will re-iterate again: I do not hate the man. Quite the opposite; I believe him to be a good person, who is doing the best job he knows how. And he is certainly doing a better job at the day-to-day stuff than I would in his shoes. But eventually, that's not enough. I disagree with him on so many issues, I wonder what his childhood must've been like.

Anyway:
As a general rule, I think "liberals" (which I'd take to mean 90% of the democrat-voting population) are anti-business in one way or another. they hate success, unless it is their own. They believe that if one person is successful, then it is at the expense of the Poor. And of course, this is a popular theory for the Poor, who readily accept the idea as a way to escape responsibility for themselves.
I don't disagree with the idea that has been offered by the Pres, suggesting that businesses have thrived in this country by using "the road" that has been laid-down through the centuries by other Americans, and even in some cases through legislation and government research, technology, etc.
What I DO disagree with is the implication that business wouldn't have found a way on their own, if "the Road" hadn't been there. Business is what drives America, and frankly, the world. "The Road" is in place to encourage business to bring business HERE, instead of elsewhere. if business goes elsewhere, it is because we've put up road-blocks, speed-bumps, etc etc.
Yes, I absolutely believe in giving back. And I participate in my own benevolent ventures that way. But I absolutely detest those who would compel me to do so, or who would dictate to me in what manner I am allowed to give back, or worse: tell me the "rules" of my success. Yes, Democrats, this is you.

Build the road, and I will bring my business, so that all may benefit. I will improve that Road as much as possible for the next ones to travel. I will show my appreciation to the Road in an appropriate manner.
But tell me that once I'm on that Road, you own me and you set the (too restrictive or smothering) rules, and I may decide to take a different Road.

Look, I'm a died-in-the-wool American (even though I was raised in Canada )(or maybe BECAUSE I was raised in Canada! ). I love this Country, and I will do all I can for her.
Michael Jordan once said to me about Superbike Racing: "look, I'm a champion; I play to win. So if the rules say that I can't win, then I'll go find a different game". We should look at ourselves, and our government-bred rules and restrictions and ask if we are friendly to business under an Obama (or most other Democrats) administration. Do we allow them to "win". And as importantly: How do we treat them when they have? IF our response is "redistribute what you have, cut your profits, open your books and show us you're running in the red, and THEN (and only then) will we allow you to remain", then we've successfully invited them to leave.

[FulviaHF]

...Anyway:
As a general rule, I think "liberals" (which I'd take to mean 90% of the democrat-voting population) are anti-business in one way or another. they hate success, unless it is their own. They believe that if one person is successful, then it is at the expense of the Poor. ...

Sorry, but that "general rule" is general nonsense. I'm sure you'd like to believe this, as it supports your political opinion, but it has absolutely no basis in fact. I'm a liberal (no need to put that in "quotes") with my own business, and I'm an active participant in our local chamber of commerce, to try to help the other business in the community succeed. Because as any business owner--liberal, conservative, whatever--understands, the more other businesses succeed, the better it is for my business. That's not a revelation given only to the political right. And by demonizing me with that ridiculous generalization, you make it impossible for us to have a rational discussion.

Equal nonsense is the idea that 'business would have found a way on their own'--that they could somehow succeed even without the infrastructure the country has collectively built'. If that's true, why doesn't business succeed equally well anywhere in the world? Because we Americans (even those of us who were actually raised in Canada) are inherently so much better? or might it be because our particular common social and governmental structure facilitates success better?

Because "The Road" isn't just a metaphor--it's a real road, it's a real interstate highway system, it's real bridges, it's real public school buildings and teachers, it's a real system of courts and laws. And none of that was--or could have been--built by business on its own. In fact, to the extent that private business built "the road", it did so when government took our collective tax dollars and hired private contractors to build that real road.

Look, it's one thing to believe that there's a balance between individual success and the common society, and to disagree on where that balance should be and how to achieve it. That's the discussion we should be having. But we cannot have a rational discussion if one side refuses to even acknowledge that the common society has some role to play in business success--as though business can somehow exist in its own vacuum. Because that makes for a wonderful mythology about heroic business success, but it doesn't reflect reality. And it prevents us from rationally addressing the real issues.

[surfingfreeman]

Well said

[maytag]

Sorry, but that "general rule" is general nonsense. I'm sure you'd like to believe this, as it supports your political opinion, but it has absolutely no basis in fact.

well, I'll meet you in the middle on this: I WOULD like to believe this, as it seems to explain behavior and attitudes that I simply cannot understand. Yes, it also supports my political position. But I'll argue that it DOES, in fact, have a basis in fact. The % is made-up. I don;t have any clue what the real number is, because very few people would like to be painted with the brush, and yet their attitudes support the accusation.

..... as any business owner--liberal, conservative, whatever--understands, the more other businesses succeed, the better it is for my business. That's not a revelation given only to the political right. And by demonizing me with that ridiculous generalization, you make it impossible for us to have a rational discussion.

You're whining. we ARE, in fact, having a rational discussion. The fact that I have proffered my perception which is counter to your own does not de-legitimize the discussion, it creates it. Without opposing viewpoints, we have no discussion. I have not "demonized" you in any way. I said that liberals are largely anti-business. This is based in my own experience and perception. the FACTS are that nearly every legislation which HURTS me as a business-owner has been born of liberals trying to enforce their own redistributive-wealth morality on me. You called yourself a liberal, and then said my definition doesn't suit you. I'm okay with that disagreement. Is it possible you're part of the 5%?

Equal nonsense is the idea that 'business would have found a way on their own'--that they could somehow succeed even without the infrastructure the country has collectively built'. If that's true, why doesn't business succeed equally well anywhere in the world? Because we Americans (even those of raised in Canada) are inherently so much better? or might it be because our particular common social and governmental structure facilitates success better?

Because "The Road" isn't just a metaphor--it's a real road, it's a real interstate highway system, it's real bridges, it's a real system of courts and laws. And none of that was--or could have been--built by business on its own.

O, I can absolutely guarantee you that this is not nonsense. Would business succeed in the same way? nope. But would it succeed nonetheless? absolutely.
You state (just as Obama's did) that without the government, the Road (metaphorically or tangibly) would not exist, and therefore, neither would business flourish.
So lemme ask you this: where would the Road be without business? Without the tax-base that business brings-in, or the jobs businesses create, or the advancements in technology and medicine, where would that Road go? And in what shape would we find it?
Maybe the real difference between our points of view could be stated with this question: "Which partner is most essential, the Road, or the Businesses?"

One would absolutely survive without the other, but not the reverse.
maybe another way to say this is "Don't bite the hand that feeds you".

Look, it's one thing to believe that there's a balance between individual success and the common society, and to disagree on where that balance should be and how to achieve it. That's the discussion we should be having. But we cannot have a rational discussion if one side refuses to even acknowledge that the common society has some role to play in business success--as though business can somehow exist in its own vacuum. Because that makes for a wonderful mythology about heroic business success, but it doesn't reflect reality. And it prevents us from rationally addressing the real issues.

Don't put words in my mouth on this. I NEVER said business would succeed in a vacuum. NOR can it exist without common society. But your statement implies that "Common Society" and "Government control and intervention" are the same thing. They are not.
And I bristle just a little that you should presume to tell me what the "discussion we should be having" is; as if no conversation is even worth having until I capitulate to your ideals by 'x' amount. The conversation we should be having is exactly where the disagreement exists, not where you think it should exist.
To that end, this statement you made:

Look, it's one thing to believe that there's a balance between individual success and the common society, and to disagree on where that balance should be and how to achieve it.

Where do you find the basic notion that individual success must be balanced with the good of common society? Why do you think that they are mutually-exclusive and must be "balanced"? My firm belief is that where one thrives, so will the other. But then again, I do not equate "Common Society" with "Government Oversight" the way you do. Where does this come from? is it in the constitution? Is it a Christian idea you espouse? Is it some fundamental of Canadian upbringing?

Wherever it is born from, this is exactly the attitude that reinforces in my mind that your thinking is decidedly anti-business. It is the underlying premise of statements such as those above. You seem to hope business doesn't succeed too much, because that would be bad for "common society" (as you define it).

[FulviaHF]

.... The % is made-up. I don;t have any clue what the real number is, because very few people would like to be painted with the brush, and yet their attitudes support the accusation. .

All you’re doing here is defending your original generalization with yet another generalization.

Don't put words in my mouth on this. I NEVER said business would succeed in a vacuum. NOR can it exist without common society. But your statement implies that "Common Society" and "Government control and intervention" are the same thing. They are not.

What you said was “What I DO disagree with is the implication that business wouldn't have found a way on their own, if "the Road" hadn't been there.” I read this as ‘business would have found a way on its own without the institutions and infrastructure of collective society’. And you said "One [business] would absolutely survive without the other [government-sponsored infrastructure], but not the reverse." Please explain how I’m misinterpreting that. As I said, it’s possible to disagree on the desirable extent of “government control and intervention”, but that’s what “common society” means. There is no advanced ”common society” that does not involve government, and no government that does not involve a significant degree of “control and intervention” in the form of laws and taxation.

Where do you find the basic notion that individual success must be balanced with the good of common society?

I read it in a book called An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, by a fellow called Adam Smith.

(BTW, the reference to "those of us raised in Canada" meant you, not me; I was born and raised in the US, though I don't believe that matters in the context of this argument.)

Why do you think that they are mutually-exclusive and must be "balanced"

They need to be balanced for the simple reason that they are anything BUT mutually exclusive. As I suggested, they are inextricably interconnected.

Maybe the real difference between our points of view could be stated with this question: "Which partner is most essential, the Road, or the Businesses?"
One would absolutely survive without the other, but not the reverse.

No, the real difference is that you believe that's a useful question, and that one could indeed survive without the other. I do not believe that either could survive without the other.

Wherever it is born from, this is exactly the attitude that reinforces in my mind that your thinking is decidedly anti-business. It is the underlying premise of statements such as those above. You seem to hope business doesn't succeed too much, because that would be bad for "common society" (as you define it).

If my thinking is “decidedly anti-business” in your mind, I’m afraid that says more about your thinking than my attitude. You are merely proving my point that some on the political right simply do not accept that government plays any role in this debate, and that anyone who questions unfettered capitalism is “anti-business”. You might do well to go back and read Mr. Smith’s book, in which he argues for the necessity of government control and intervention. If you did you might understand that “redistribution of wealth” is fundamental to any system of modern economics; the only dispute is the terms of the redistribution and the extent of government control and intervention.

[maytag]

O! I didn't realize Mr Smith said it! And in a BOOK no less!?!? Well, I'd better revise my position.
(if everything a guy named Smith wrote in a book was to be considered unassailable fact, then we'd all be sharing church meetings with Mitt Romney )

alright... look.... Now we've regressed to arguing about the argument, rather than the topic. I started it, so I take full responsibility.

Ultimately, I think we've all made great decisions about the cars we love. I think we could leave this thread as friends if we can take a step back and agree that I'm right and you're wrong, and neither one of us is likely to convert the other.

seriously: I'm pretty passionate about this. so are you. And I have every reason to think that you are at least as smart as I am. I will always err on the side of less government. Always. Of course I pay my taxes, and to a certain extent, I do so happily and willingly, because I want better roads, better schools, and because I want my water to run uphill and my $h!t to run downhill. Of course there is an appropriate place for government. But I think government should serve the people (and business) and not the other way around. I do not think I am entitled to the same things that my neighbor has.

I'm happy to be in a country (and on a forum) where some deep philosophical differences don't have to end with an AK-47. (I hope? you're not on your way to my house, are you? 'cuz don't forget which of us is the liberal here... I probably own more guns than you! )

[FulviaHF]

No, no AK-47. I'm perfectly happy with the only thing dying being this thread...

[TX82FIAT]

Folks, this will be my last post on this thead. I started this off to see if like minded car folks, people whose advice I have come to respect, could rationally discuss what is going on in the USA. For the most part there has been some really good points made and a very diverse range of responses. However, I did underestimate how devisive this topic could and in some cases has become.

I'm not sure I like the idea of anyone with an opinion sticking their head in the sand. There is no need to denegrate anyone because they think diffently about topic. To retain good relationships with people I respect and fellow enthusiast. I'm out. Peace!

[FulviaHF]

Threads like this one aren't usually a great idea on a site like this, which I (and I susect, others) go to escape all the political crap. This has generally been very civil, which I think speaks well of this group. But there's no reason to continue it, IMO.

So, since this is your thread, why don't you ask the moderator to lock it?

[RRoller123]

I will break my own vow to stop posting on this thread by adding this one last tidbit; that may offer an interesting closure. This was written 118 years ago by Auberon Herbert and is absolutely prescient. He must have had a crystal ball.

[maytag]

I will break my own vow to stop posting on this thread by adding this one last tidbit; that may offer an interesting closure. This was written 118 years ago by Auberon Herbert and is absolutely prescient. He must have had a crystal ball.

You could also say it this way:

We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

This was from a different Mr. Smith; circa 1839

[FulviaHF]

I will break my own vow to stop posting on this thread by adding this one last tidbit; that may offer an interesting closure. This was written 118 years ago by Auberon Herbert and is absolutely prescient. He must have had a crystal ball.

Sorry it took so long to respond, but I was laughing too hard to type.

Auberon Herbert?? You’ve gotta be kidding. Do you even know who you’re quoting?

The idea that taxation should be voluntary and that we should reject the “tyranny of the masses” was an easy position to take when you were born into the British aristocracy of the mid-19th century.

When you’re the son of the 3rd Earl of Carnarvon, with enough inherited wealth that you never have to work a day in your life, it’s easy to imagine that government should be “strictly limited to its legitimate duties in defense of self-ownership and individual rights”–in other words, the bare minimum required to protect the land and money of those who inherited it.

Yeah–that’s a perfectly useful model for the US in the 21st century...