Chris, that is true, although I am still waiting for a good idea to come out of the DHLS. My comment was to say that the proposal is not in fact the same thing I had outlined in another post.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's still the government in control, either private organisations are controlled heavily by the government and therefore the government still has all the power, or they aren't controlled in which case they don't have any oversight and the entire idea is pointless.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Because government is better at controlling things that they do not hold a large financial stake in. I do not dislike government oversight, I dislike the corruption, waste and misuse that can come from large government projects.
Well a degree of waste and misuse is to be expected in democratic governments, because you keep switching the people in charge and they don't get to be in charge by being good at running countries, they get there by winning popularity contests. Governments are also usually pretty big, and all big enterprises are somewhat wasteful, public or private. It is quite annoying but there is also not much you can do about it until technology improves to allow us to manage larger groups more effectively.
Corruption, well I think the only reason private enterprises aren't corrupt is because they're <i>supposed</i> to be money grubbing and profiteering. When people in government try to make a profit, it's corruption, when people in business try to do it, it's good business. It's not really an improvement I don't think, in both cases it's money being spent on things other than improving the service.
I think the obvious problem with homeland security is that if they are doing their job properly, you don't notice, because not-being-blown-up-by-terrorists is generally not a noteworthy thing. It's also I think fairly secretive, so it probably doesn't broadcast everything it does. Unless you take it away you probably can't tell how much good it's doing.
<!--quoteo(post=1824076:date=Jan 13 2011, 02:33 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 13 2011, 02:33 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1824076"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think the obvious problem with homeland security is that if they are doing their job properly, you don't notice, because not-being-blown-up-by-terrorists is generally not a noteworthy thing. It's also I think fairly secretive, so it probably doesn't broadcast everything it does. Unless you take it away you probably can't tell how much good it's doing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> There is a distinction between the DHLS and the agencies it has been put in charge of that actually are the ones that do all the work you are talking about.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Corruption, well I think the only reason private enterprises aren't corrupt is because they're supposed to be money grubbing and profiteering. When people in government try to make a profit, it's corruption, when people in business try to do it, it's good business. It's not really an improvement I don't think, in both cases it's money being spent on things other than improving the service.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The difference is when the private sector does something that makes them money but adversely effects the public the government is suppose to be there to stop them, when the government does it it seems less often they get stopped.
I think that's more a problem with the freedom of information than government in general.
You can try putting the government at odds with corporations and assume they will make noise when a corporation does something objectionable, but I think it would make more sense to put the public at odds with the government and give them the power to see and take issue when they do something objectionable. If you can give the government the power to control business responsibly, you should be able to give the public the power to control the government.
I can't help but notice that you still haven't shared your secret information source, Sops. Since I don't think that you are just imagining or making up information where none exists, please share it with us.
And you have no desire to seperate fact from fiction? How can I even discuss anything with you if you reserve the right to make things up as you go along?
I think there is enough information to be concerned, with government regulation it is best to keep an eye on it in the planning stages because once it has been implemented it is much harder to fight. I am not organizing a march on Washington with pitch forks, I think you are the one over reacting.
<!--quoteo(post=1824066:date=Jan 13 2011, 07:55 PM:name=Sops)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sops @ Jan 13 2011, 07:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1824066"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Because government is better at controlling things that they do not hold a large financial stake in. I do not dislike government oversight, I dislike the corruption, waste and misuse that can come from large government projects.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, I believe that statements like are often unfounded. You say it easily and as though it is an immutable fact. But it is actually just a supposition which lacks actual evidence.
Comments
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's still the government in control, either private organisations are controlled heavily by the government and therefore the government still has all the power, or they aren't controlled in which case they don't have any oversight and the entire idea is pointless.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because government is better at controlling things that they do not hold a large financial stake in. I do not dislike government oversight, I dislike the corruption, waste and misuse that can come from large government projects.
Corruption, well I think the only reason private enterprises aren't corrupt is because they're <i>supposed</i> to be money grubbing and profiteering. When people in government try to make a profit, it's corruption, when people in business try to do it, it's good business. It's not really an improvement I don't think, in both cases it's money being spent on things other than improving the service.
I think the obvious problem with homeland security is that if they are doing their job properly, you don't notice, because not-being-blown-up-by-terrorists is generally not a noteworthy thing. It's also I think fairly secretive, so it probably doesn't broadcast everything it does. Unless you take it away you probably can't tell how much good it's doing.
There is a distinction between the DHLS and the agencies it has been put in charge of that actually are the ones that do all the work you are talking about.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Corruption, well I think the only reason private enterprises aren't corrupt is because they're supposed to be money grubbing and profiteering. When people in government try to make a profit, it's corruption, when people in business try to do it, it's good business. It's not really an improvement I don't think, in both cases it's money being spent on things other than improving the service.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The difference is when the private sector does something that makes them money but adversely effects the public the government is suppose to be there to stop them, when the government does it it seems less often they get stopped.
You can try putting the government at odds with corporations and assume they will make noise when a corporation does something objectionable, but I think it would make more sense to put the public at odds with the government and give them the power to see and take issue when they do something objectionable. If you can give the government the power to control business responsibly, you should be able to give the public the power to control the government.
Again, I believe that statements like are often unfounded. You say it easily and as though it is an immutable fact. But it is actually just a supposition which lacks actual evidence.
When it comes to stepping on your rights, Republicans and Democrats are in bipartisan agreement.