the problem is civil obedience.

Found this on line.
Matt Damon on the ills of civil obedience.
[video=youtube;S2li9E_94MA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2li9E_94MA#t=276[/video]

Of course, at any given time 50% will obey the state without question, because their guy is in office.
When their guy is out, the other half will pick up where the first half left off.

 

There is a dumbass for you. Mister "all teachers are the same, we don't need education competition etc... " Funk that guy. He wouldn't send his kids to the schools he won't let others escape. Double standards for other people's children? Shameful. Playing "government is the best" politics with children is disgusting. He should worship his government in private if he has to do it and not go public until he wants his kids in the public schools he lends his star power.

 

can you fill us in on the details. I didn't see it in the video.

 

He is anti school voucher but keeps his kids in private school.

 

I am anti school voucher too. In fact we shouldn't have to pay for the government schools either.

 

Well that is school voucher in a way. You would just pay for own education out of the tax savings you get.

 

why don't we simply save our taxes in the first place and fund schools of our choosing.

 

That would be the most efficient way, but the left would never allow it. They would claim parents wouldn't educate their children. They may be right about some. Vouchers are at least category 2 spending more efficient then the current category 4 spending system.

In any event, Matt Damon's version of civil disobedience is more government and more power to the teachers unions and more dependency etc... It is about as backwards as you can get. Like rage against the machine calling for a larger machine.

 

I don't believe i heard that in the video. I believe he talked about the opposite. If he is on record saying the things you have stated, I'd like to see them.

 

Did you hear in the video about "wealth allocation"? As if government allocates it instead of others creating it. How do you think he plans to reallocate it?

I will go and get your other sources when I am at a computer. Linking by phone is no fun, but google "Matt Damon John stossel education youtube" and you will find one.

 

Zinn.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36950.htm

Not really much of a surprise that a conservative would get sidetracked by a Hollywood celeb, or 'domestic terrarist comie librul deth panel dictatur' to give them their full right wing title.

 

I think he was condemning the government facilitated transfer of our wealth to entities such as the finance industry, defense contractors, insurers, government privileged entities and all forms of special interests.

At least this half of the equation he got right.

This seems to be the outcome of policy no matter which party is in charge, yet we enable it by playing the team sport game and supporting everything our favorite party proposes, despite the proven track record.
Every policy out of washington grows the government apparatus and enriches the politically connected. The people get the table scraps. The middle class bears the brunt of both party's folly.

 

not right wing. But thanks for shooting your wad like a good little statist should.

 

I wasn't referring to your posts.

Statist? The usual response from the bereft.

 

then i have no idea what your point was.

or someone who didn't understand what you were trying to say, as you had some cryptic message, and I can't read minds.

So let's try again. What point were you trying to make ?

 

He does have the wall street part correct, but then he fails on green energy, socialized medicine, and host of other issues including education and taxation. He is pretty big into cronyism and big government, just not the ones he was complaining about that day.

 

It's a Zinn speech (with a few embellishments) so the derailment into the dusty sidings about who and what Damon is is irrelevant unless you're a US right winger since they're noted for an obsessive hatred of all things Hollywood.

 

I try to take what is good from each side and incorporate it.
All good points have the ability to open eyes. The more eyes realizing that government is the cause of problems, the more chances of both sides putting 2 and 2 together and getting on the same team.

The more we keep government out of things, the less chance we have for corruption and massive transfers of wealth to the politically connected.

- - - Updated - - -

I just liked some of the points he was making.

 

Damon's one of the good guys.

 

though he may be a little misguided in thinking that government can be trusted with power on some fronts and not others.
It never gets selective control, it just gets control. And if it can be corrupted in some, it will be corrupted in all.

 

I'm curious about this as I'm pretty new to this forum and still not 100% familiar with some of the regular posters yet. Are you saying you're a left-libertarian then? You do know there is a spectrum of libertarianism, right?

 

I'm a liberty advocate. I don't care how labels are applied.

 

Speaking personally, neither do I. Yet labels can useful as a way to quickly communicate (roughly) where a person stands in relation to others without writing a 50-page essay breaking down their views on every issue under the sun. No one here has time to read a political autobiography for every other poster.

There's a school of thought among American libertarians that believes there can be only one kind of libertarian -- Ron Paul libertarians. That's why I'm wondering what I am.

 

The right and left hate Paul equally. That means he incorporates the best form both sides, and is equally hated by each sides for not supporting each of their respective authoritarian stances.

 

Despite the fact that I agree with Paul on a number of issues, this is not sound reasoning. I'll leave this here:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Galileo_gambit