When did you start to distrust the government?

Yes but that's not Conservativism which is what the right is Libertarianism is entierly different depending on what scale your using they are either on the top or bottom of the Nolan Chart or Pollitical Compas. Not on the right with the Khanservatives.

edited 5th Apr '11 5:30:00 PM by tnu1138

Followup to my government post: Corporations, for all their faults, are also much more good than bad.

After all, there are countries without any major corporate presence. They're all over Africa and you've probably donated money to one of them at some point.

Corporations can do some awfully stupid or evil things, and we should prevent them from doing those, but remember next time banks torpedo the economy that they could only do that because they built up the economy in the first place.

9/11 truthers are lunatic fringe; I wouldn't get ideas from them, if I were you. The government is pretty damn incompetent; too much so to pull off any big conspiracy like that.

best to keep them incompotent. You know the trope No Delays for the Wicked.

The government is much more competent than people normally think; if it was so incompetent it couldn't hold the country together.

That said, there is overwhelming physical evidence that exactly what the government says happened happened. Not to mention that Al-Qaeda has behaved as they would've if they'd done this and not as they would've if they didn't do this, and that the US government knows it would seriously risk a revolution if it was ever caught doing something like that, and anything can be leaked.

Here's the thing they don't mention 9/11 was not unprovoked it was blowback. I'm not tryign to say it was justified i'm just saying it wasn't out of nowhere.

It's less Pointy Haired Boss, and more Xanatos Pile-up of a sort, to be honest. You have department/division heads directly competing against one another, dumping off costs while taking credit for as much revenue as possible. Then put on top of that where it's financially better for short-term valuation gains over long-term profitability, and it's just a nightmare.

Not that all corporations are like this. But they do tend to move in that directions as they get bigger. It's why I'm generally strictly against privatization, for example.

@tnu Nah I know you're a libertarian. My way of thinking that those are related, is that I think that libertarianism would create a power vacuum that would have to be filled somehow. And while there are some libertarians who give me the impression that they would like that space to be filled in a way that I don't think would be good, you're not one of them. If you want to know how I think that space would be filled, go do some reading on company towns. That's what I'm against.

Re:9/11, it's pretty simple. I'm a hawk on terrorism. Not as in bomb them into kingdom come, but as in doing solid police work, stopping plots while at the same time reducing the viability of terrorism as a tactic. That used to be one of my pet issues. And this is in 99 or so? Long time ago. Clinton took some public steps to move towards this, he was opposed. Missles and rogue states were the biggest threat his critics said. In 2000, Bush won. Wanted absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. That was a Clinton thing. Basically did pretty much nothing. He dropped the guard. Not because he wanted it to happen, but because the other guy told him that it probably was going to happen, and he didn't believe him 'cos he was the other guy. That's the real scandal here.

edited 5th Apr '11 6:34:58 PM by Karmakin

^ Considering the 9/11 Commission looking into intelligence and security failures points the root causes as somewhere in the late 1990s those statements don't hold water.