You know…reading this - as short as this thread is at the moment - I’m suddenly seeing the connection between communism and capitalism. Both depend on the average guy to get stuff done. The difference is in the watchers…communism would elect watchers, capitalists hire and fire them. The problem with communism is that elected watchers are hard to get rid of - in capitalism, either financial success or failure “unelects” the watchers. Our problems today stem from too many elected watchers, not enough failures allowed to fail. The worker is the worker. The workers have to choose their leaders and police themselves. If they don’t, then it all depends on someone else doing that, and the workers slack off. We’re our own best or worst judges.

I’m not developing this well…but what it comes down to is individual responsibility. When you have layer and layer of “watchers” there’s always some one avoiding being watched.

To the point — could not agree more. Problems with the Transportation Safety Administration at the airports make the case….the politicians got another government employees union to milk, but a private contractor overseen by state officials would have been a MUCH better solution, since the contract would be competitive, and unsatisfactory work would lead to a different contractor being chosen.

The fly in the ointment is “who watches the watchers?”….if the oversight is crummy, we can’t fire the official who, through negligence or graft, let’s the contractor get away with substandard work…..

We’re doomed!

That should be “make jokes about the aristocrats behind their backs”.

This was a natural state of affairs given the FOunding Father’s biases. In those days, law and order were the rarities. And for those New England places that were civilized, the Code Duello and the Gentleman’s word was held as more ironclad legal promises than simply sheets of paper. As paper banking developed, people still held to the honor code, if only the honor code to one’s personal banker concerning debts.

But the Founding Fathers never realized just how much order and law one could acquire in a prosperous and secure country that they wished to built. Because they never foresaw a problem of “too much law”, just “too much corruption in law”, they were able to predict that judges would refuse to do their duties because of corruption and buyout, thus requiring a balance of power, but they never saw that judges and individuals not elected would simply refuse to do things cause they are apathetic. And they could never forsee how a special elite class of law manipulators could get into power and be elected in by a populace that simply no longer understands their laws.

Back in the day, they had claim jumpers, forgeries, and all the other shenanigans we usually just no longer see as a primary problem. Our primary problem is that the public no longer even cares to attempt to understand the law. They have given it entirely unto the care of lawyers and judges. Because these people are part of the new aristocracy, with an ability to manipulate and comprehend America’s legal system, they have a power independent of the citizen’s. And many people under an aristocratic system will blame the aristocrats and make about the aristocrats behind their backs, because that is what you do to a class that you have raised above yourself and feel inferior to and yet also superior to.

All that Frank has done is to highlight the government’s complete inefficiency, ineffectiveness, and failure to shoulder responsiblity.

he has essentially promised that the new aristocrats will overthrow the old aristocrats and give the peasants welfare.

But in the end, it’s till a bunch of power mad individuals fighting over the same damn pie.

So are liberals. And we’re nicer.

That’s a joke, Bookworm.