Peasants: should government be small, voluntary, and private?

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

Pathetic.

 

Who did you vote for? The free AK loons?

 

No. Individualistic cultures lead to more corruption. In your long winded BS post above, you elluded to the acceptance of corruption:

 

"...because there are ALWAYS people smarter than you who will game it to their advantage..."

 

Then in the same hypocritical breath without skipping a beat, you get all holy:

 

"...I've never stated anything about moving Alaska to the Lower 48 or anything remotely similar. I've never voted for a single Alaskan politician that's represented the state at the national level and I'm absolutely disgusted by the fraud, waste, and abuse perpetuated on both the American taxpayer and the indigenous people by the representative delegation. The difference is, unlike you, I'm not part of the problem..."

Yes. You are part of the problem!

 

I will do the research for you:

 

In fact, the correlation between a state’s 2000 census population and its corruption index score is basically zero, and even slightly (but nonsignificantly) positive: r = .097, p = .58. Other facts I found while playing around with the data: among the “too small to count” states, Rhode Island’s corruption score is about 2.40, Alaska’s 5.79, and North Dakota’s 7.54.

"...In an early attempt to explain why that is, the late Temple University political science professor Daniel J. Elazar argued in the 1960s that the United States can be divided in to three general political cultures, moralistic, traditional and individualistic.

 

 

 

In a moralistic culture, the professor argued, government is considered to be a good thing, and officeholders expected to look out for the general welfare. In a traditional culture, citizens expect a hierarchical society. And individualistic cultures value private efforts over collective ones. Broadly defined, the moralistic areas of the US were New England and the Midwest, the Traditional areas were clustered in the south, and individualistic culture centered on the Atlantic seaboard in states like New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio and … Illinois.

 

 

 

It’s the individualistic states, where there is an ethos that encourages people to be out for themselves, where corruption most easily takes root, argue some political scientists. Just look at the states that make up the group: “That’s the corruption rogues gallery,” says Colgate University political science professor Michael Johnston. “Every state has its own flavor,” he says, “but they all have a very high level of risk for corruption.”

 

 

 

But the regional theory has one big flaw: The most corrupt states aren’t in the “individualistic” part of the country.

In 2007, the publication Corporate Crime Reporter crunched Department of Justice statistics to rank the 35 most populous states of the nation by corruption. The top three? Louisiana, Mississippi and Kentucky – which can be better thought of as broadly representing the “moralistic” states. Illinois didn’t even break the top five, coming in sixth on the list.

 

 

 

What gives? Colgate’s Johnston says that there’s more to it than just regional character. He’s been studying political corruption since the 1970s, and has concluded that there are several key ingredients for political corruption. He says those include multiple political cultures competing for dominance, such as rural versus urban voters, tightly balanced party competition, and an elite political culture in which politicians expect to see corruption in their daily lives.

 

 

 

“Corruption becomes a self fulfilling prophecy,” Johnston says. “There’s a real qualitative change when people walk out the door of their home each morning expecting to have to make payoffs...”

[ExiledInIllinois]

Here are the corruption rates per 100,000 in the 35 states that are big enough to count, I posted above where AK fits in the the states "too small to count." A 5.79...

 

These are the results:

 

 

 

1. Louisiana(7.67)

 

2. Mississippi (6.66)

 

3. Kentucky (5.18)

 

4. Alabama (4.76)

 

5. Ohio(4.69)

 

6. Illinois (4.68)

 

7. Pennsylvania (4.55)

 

8. Florida (4.47)

 

9. New Jersey (4.32)

 

10. New York (3.95)

 

11. Tennessee (3.68)

 

12. Virginia (3.64)

 

13. Oklahoma (2.96)

 

14. Connecticut (2.80)

 

15. Missouri (2.79)

 

16. Arkansas (2.74)

 

17. Massachusetts (2.66)

 

18. Texas (2.44)

 

19. Maryland (2.31)

 

20. Michigan (2.14)

 

21. Georgia (2.13)

 

22. Wisconsin (2.09)

 

23. California (2.07)

 

24. North Carolina (1.96)

 

25. Arizona (1.88)

 

26. Indiana (1.85)

 

27. South Carolina (1.74)

 

28. Nevada (1.72)

 

29. Colorado (1.56)

 

30. Washington (1.52)

 

31. Utah (1.4117)

 

32. Kansas (1.4109)

 

33. Minnesota (1.24)

 

34. Iowa (0.91)

 

35. Oregon (0.68).

[Alaska Darin]

Who did you vote for? The free AK loons?

I don't vote for political parties, jackass.

No. Individualistic cultures lead to more corruption. In your long winded BS post above, you elluded to the acceptance of corruption:

 

"...because there are ALWAYS people smarter than you who will game it to their advantage..."

Being able to face reality is hardly the same thing as accepting it as unchangeable gospel. It seems your entire game revolves around trying to attribute things to me that I've NEVER said.

Then in the same hypocritical breath without skipping a beat, you get all holy:

 

"...I've never stated anything about moving Alaska to the Lower 48 or anything remotely similar. I've never voted for a single Alaskan politician that's represented the state at the national level and I'm absolutely disgusted by the fraud, waste, and abuse perpetuated on both the American taxpayer and the indigenous people by the representative delegation. The difference is, unlike you, I'm not part of the problem..."

Yes. You are part of the problem!

More displacement and attribution. In translation: You say something, then attribute it to me. The end game is you somehow winning an argument that you're only having in your own head.

I will do the research for you:

In fact, the correlation between a state’s 2000 census population and its corruption index score is basically zero, and even slightly (but nonsignificantly) positive: r = .097, p = .58. Other facts I found while playing around with the data: among the “too small to count” states, Rhode Island’s corruption score is about 2.40, Alaska’s 5.79, and North Dakota’s 7.54.

 

"...In an early attempt to explain why that is, the late Temple University political science professor Daniel J. Elazar argued in the 1960s that the United States can be divided in to three general political cultures, moralistic, traditional and individualistic.

 

 

 

In a moralistic culture, the professor argued, government is considered to be a good thing, and officeholders expected to look out for the general welfare. In a traditional culture, citizens expect a hierarchical society. And individualistic cultures value private efforts over collective ones. Broadly defined, the moralistic areas of the US were New England and the Midwest, the Traditional areas were clustered in the south, and individualistic culture centered on the Atlantic seaboard in states like New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio and … Illinois.

 

 

 

It’s the individualistic states, where there is an ethos that encourages people to be out for themselves, where corruption most easily takes root, argue some political scientists. Just look at the states that make up the group: “That’s the corruption rogues gallery,” says Colgate University political science professor Michael Johnston. “Every state has its own flavor,” he says, “but they ALL have a very high level of risk for corruption.”

 

 

 

But the regional theory has one big flaw: The most corrupt states AREN'T in the “individualistic” part of the country.

In 2007, the publication Corporate Crime Reporter crunched Department of Justice statistics to rank the 35 most populous states of the nation by corruption. The top three? Louisiana, Mississippi and Kentucky – which can be better thought of as broadly representing the “moralistic” states. Illinois didn’t even break the top five, coming in sixth on the list.

 

 

 

What gives? Colgate’s Johnston says that there’s more to it than just regional character. He’s been studying political corruption since the 1970s, and has concluded that there are several key ingredients for political corruption. He says those include multiple political cultures competing for dominance, such as rural versus urban voters, tightly balanced party competition, and an elite political culture in which politicians expect to see corruption in their daily lives.

 

 

 

“Corruption becomes a self fulfilling prophecy,” Johnston says. “There’s a real qualitative change when people walk out the door of their home each morning expecting to have to make payoffs...”

 

Which isn't even digging deeper into how or what was measured, just disproving your "point" with your own friggin' data. What's the matter, too ashamed to post the link to Slate because it paints Illinois in such a poor light? Corruption Smackdown: Illinois versus Louisiana

 

Now to go after the "study":

 

Mokhiber warned that the study has its limitations.

 

“The Justice Department is reporting only public corruption convictions that result from a federal prosecution,” Mokhiber said. “Convictions that result from a prosecution pursued by state district attorneys or attorneys general, for example, are not included in the Justice Department statistics. But the vast majority of public corruption prosecutions – perhaps as many as 80 percent – are brought by federal officials.”

 

“Also, public officials in any given state can be corrupt to the core, and if a federal prosecutor doesn’t have the resources or the sheer political will to bring the case and win a conviction, the public corruption will not be reflected in the Justice Department’s data set,” Mokhiber said."

 

Let's tally this up:

 

1. Your "hypothesis" is disproven using your own data.

2. The study that you cite is pedestrian at best. The irony of that is it may actually be the best defense you may have for your ridiculous point.

3. I haven't said any of the things you're attributing to me.

4. The "study" pretty much proves the point I repeat over and over: The only way to reign in corruption in government is to limit it in both scope and access to capital. That's the antithesis of your political matra and the "defenses" that have been offered up in this thread. Of course, liberals like to pretend that any success is proof of their beliefs despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

 

Now tell everyone that I'm a hypocrite, have a Napoleonic complex, and that you're somehow winning.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Now tell everyone that I'm a hypocrite, have a Napoleonic complex, and that you're somehow winning.

 

No thanks, you just did.

 

The part that you can't come to grips with is that individualistic culture IS the problem. Again, you are the disease, not the cure. You can blather on all you want. Oh, and next time read carefully before you spout off the insults, it is unbecoming.

 

You can have the last word... I am much too busy to be playing your troll games.

[Alaska Darin]

No thanks, you just did.

Typical. Ludicrous, but typical.

The part that you can't come to grips with is that individualistic culture IS the problem. Again, you are the disease, not the cure. You can blather on all you want. Oh, and next time read carefully before you spout off the insults, it is unbecoming.

The part you can't come to grips with is there isn't a single thing to scapegoat for a system that has gone awry over decades.

 

I don't have to carefully read your simplistic drivel. That's laughable. Once again, you've brought nothing of substance to the discussion and then try to pass it off as someone else's problem. But is the "individualisticness" of the rest of the world that's the problem.

You can have the last word... I am much too busy to be playing your troll games.

Waddle away with your ball, large Marge.

[Jim in Anchorage]

The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT should only be concerned with national defense.The States can handle the rest.

 

 

 

Can you give us back the ALCAN.

 

Like I said... Now that AK has a leg up and that oil money is flowing... Typical "we don't need anyone" approach. Where were you in the late 1940's and 1950's when the ALCAN was upgraded. I got no problem reverting AK back to the 1920s'... Rip out all the infrastructure.

 

 

Did you even read the post you have been so ineffectually arguing about?

WHY WAS THE ALCAN BUILT?

Oh and please tell me what gov't agency built the trans Alaska pipeline. All they did was finally get out of the way when the arabs shut off the oil.

Still waiting.