Are lefties bullies?

[Wild Bill]

As for marijuana use, the right IMO is not risking the free for all that used to be the wild west when everything was legal and it was a free for all. IMO the only reason alcohol was made legal again, was because of established rich domestic alcohol producers. Had liquor been made in stills instead of in factories before prohibition, booze would still be illegal. It was the lawlessness and chaos of the wild west that resulted in prohibition and the prohibition of mind altering drugs, and the tough criminal laws in the US that still exist today. Oh and in the days of the Wild West when everything went, orgainized crime was a much bigger problem.

I have a hard time accepting this part of your argument. My impression is that Prohibition failed because there was just too high a percentage of the American public who both hated and flaunted it! Also, that the criminal element had grown so rich and powerful because of it that the American government could not possibly make an effective attack on it.

The parallels with today are obvious. In my town the police discovered SEVERAL FLOORS OF AN APARTMENT BUILDING HAD BEEN RUNNING AS A GROW-OP!

The police cannot be everywhere and it all gets down to the money. If you are going to impose your own personal standards on SOMEONE ELSE then you are a fool if you expect them to meekly accept it. They will hate you for it and find ways around the law. You end up needing (and paying!) for a cop not just on every corner but in every home.

Prohibition was the direct cause of gangsters like Al Capone. He never would have been so rich and powerful without booze money. Prohibition was a result of the Temperance Movement achieving sufficient lobbying power. The problem was that it was a direct attack on the rights of an individual to go to hell his own way. In effect, the Temperance Movement achieved the political power to FORCE their neighbours to do what the TM thought was good for them!

Prohibition tactics are really just social fascism. This is made worse by such fascists taxing the hell out of the rest of us to pay for their futile charade of even making a dent in the "war on drugs".

Finally, there's no way stills could have become the main supply of alcohol. Stills require a reasonable amount of room, heat and ventilation from the heavy smells. Not the sort of industry that lends itself to city dwellers, or even many rural dwellers at the time who didn't own their own land.

Which exasperates the present problem. It is FAR easier to grow some plants in an urban dwelling than to run a still!

[DrGreenthumb]

As for marijuana use, the right IMO is not risking the free for all that used to be the wild west when everything was legal and it was a free for all. IMO the only reason alcohol was made legal again, was because of established rich domestic alcohol producers. Had liquor been made in stills instead of in factories before prohibition, booze would still be illegal. It was the lawlessness and chaos of the wild west that resulted in prohibition and the prohibition of mind altering drugs, and the tough criminal laws in the US that still exist today. Oh and in the days of the Wild West when everything went, orgainized crime was a much bigger problem.

I call extreme bullshit on this poor excuse for an argument. Prohibition of drugs has absolutely nothing to do with protecting people from wild westedness. If anything prohibition creates the very thing you say it was enacted to stop. It was never enacted to protect anyone from drugs that is for sure. Nobody in Canada and most of the states even knew what the hell marijuana was before emily murphy and harry anslinger started telling everyone that it was a devil weed that would make you go insane and kill your own brother. It was made illegal using LIES, scare-mongering, and fanning the flames of racist sentiments, tactics that conservatives still use today.

It amazes me that this prohibition is allowed to continue when everybody knows now that it was enacted under false pretense. The very fact that lies, exageration and plain racism were the factors that caused the prohibition to be enacted should be reason enough to repeal the law. All ones needs to do to verify that the racist sentiment that caused prohibition is alive and well within the ranks of conservative party supporters is read through this forum and see all the anti-immigrant threads started by folks who self identify as conservative supporters. Like emily murphy they are still afraid that the purity of the white race is being compromised by the influx of yellow or brown skinned people.

[Pliny]

I call extreme bullshit on this poor excuse for an argument. Prohibition of drugs has absolutely nothing to do with protecting people from wild westedness. If anything prohibition creates the very thing you say it was enacted to stop. It was never enacted to protect anyone from drugs that is for sure. Nobody in Canada and most of the states even knew what the hell marijuana was before emily murphy and harry anslinger started telling everyone that it was a devil weed that would make you go insane and kill your own brother. It was made illegal using LIES, scare-mongering, and fanning the flames of racist sentiments, tactics that conservatives still use today.

It amazes me that this prohibition is allowed to continue when everybody knows now that it was enacted under false pretense. The very fact that lies, exageration and plain racism were the factors that caused the prohibition to be enacted should be reason enough to repeal the law. All ones needs to do to verify that the racist sentiment that caused prohibition is alive and well within the ranks of conservative party supporters is read through this forum and see all the anti-immigrant threads started by folks who self identify as conservative supporters. Like emily murphy they are still afraid that the purity of the white race is being compromised by the influx of yellow or brown skinned people.

Prohibition is just do-gooders with enough political influence to bully politicians into enacting legislation to bully the rest of the citizenry into a certain behavior.

I know you yourself don't care if other people smoke pot or not but you feel that the world would be a better place if everyone did. You are on the right side in that you prefer the use of force to curb behavior be abandoned. However, you are on the wrong side of the argument in stating the drug is absolutely harmless. You may not feel any adverse physical effects but you have to admit it is not your normal state. Your normal state may be something you dislike and being out of your normal state is what you prefer for some reason.

[bk59]

I wouldn't consider the right as bullies, just they won't take much for risks and consider the lesser of two evils.

As for the left being bullies, one only needs to look at the young people from the Cuban baseball team defecting in the most right wing province in Canada.

It looks like you are comparing two different things here, much like a lot of people in this thread. A lot of people seem to be confusing a political philosophy with how people who subscribe to that philosophy behave. (Except that in this thread this confusion only seems to apply to left wing ideologies.)

You have given a summary of what you think the right wing believes in (e.g. not taking risks and choosing the lesser of two evils). Even if we agreed that this is an accurate summary, it does nothing to prove or disprove that people on the right are bullies. What they believe is separate from how they promote their beliefs. Likewise, just because you can think of individuals from a particular ideology who act like bullies, that does not mean that everyone from that ideology uses the same methods to promote their beliefs.

The right being determined as a bully is dependant on ones point of view.

This seems to be the big problem here. A lot of people are crying "oh, I've been bullied!" just because others disagreed with them. Others are even claiming that the government has bullied them simply because they don't agree with the spending choices made by a particular government. These types of actions apply across the entire political spectrum and are not limited to "lefties" or "righties". Part of this so-called bullying is just life. (Really, did you think a government would only spend money if 100% of the people agreed? Nothing would ever get done if that was the case!)

The right on gay marriage is IMO defending the rights of a church minister or justice of the peace not being to forced to marry gays. I've heard leftists say that they should be forced to. Who's rights are being trampled. As for marriage, I believe the concept in today's society is totally dated and useless.

I'll only look at one of your examples. First, even if those points of view on gay marriage were accurate, they do not amount to the type of bullying that the OP was complaining about. Simply having those views does not translate into always shouting down those with opposing views or not being open to debate.

Also, this is a very interesting take on the right's position on gay marriage. Most of the time, when I hear someone from the right talking about gay marriage, they want to forbid it. Some may be willing to accept the position you have described, but for the most part I hear people who say that they would get rid of it if they could. You also seem to have misrepresented the left position. Sure, some people may say that ministers should be forced to perform gay marriages, but most people on the left that I know would not agree with that position. They would support a minister's freedom of religion to marry or not marry gay couples as per their and their church's beliefs.

Justices of the peace are a different example though. Most people on most issues, left or right, would say that government employees should be expected to follow the policies of the government. For some reason, when it comes to the policy on gay marriage, some people think that these particular government employees should be exempt from doing their job. I think it is a perfectly valid opinion to say that government employees should follow the policies of the government and do their job regardless of the issue.

It may be harsh, particularly for those who do not wish to perform gay marriages and were employed before gay marriages became a reality, but to accept the alternative would mean accepting the proposition that every time the government institutes a new policy any government worker could just refuse to work because they disagreed with that policy. Nothing would ever get done because you would always have half the government service sitting around doing nothing.

[Pliny]

Nothing would ever get done because you would always have half the government service sitting around doing nothing.

[eyeball]

Are the left bullies? They are the ones that will make the most laws regarding social engineering in my opinion.

Extreme leftists and rightists being of a socialistic bent will tned toward totalitarianism,

Are the right bullies? They are the ones that will make the most laws regarding moral engineering.

Both bend toward totalitarianism but I bet moral engineers will get you there faster and keep you there longer.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Go tell it to Joe McCarthy.

I love this quote.

Inadvertantly, you have gotten to the base reason for left wing bullying. All too often the left wing act in a bullying fashion out of some perceived (actually misperceieved) feeling of oppression and "fighting the power".

When in reality, this is an antiquated notion, evidenced purely by the outdateness of their "causes".

McCarthyism was 50 years ago.

Gay marriage? It's legal.

Abortion? On demand.

Climate Change? Have you read the newspaper lately?

This is the root problem with so many lefties: they take on this aggressive "speaking truth to power" stance because they've watched too many McCarthy movies of past eras or drank the "Brokeback"Kool-Aid. But in reality, what power are they speaking truth to? These battles are all long won.

The tables have turned, and they ARE the power, and they use it to bully people, which is what this thread is about.

[eyeball]

McCarthyism was 50 years ago.

His fear of the left is still thriving however.

These battles are all long won.

Yet the war rages on.

[bk59]

I love this quote.

Inadvertantly, you have gotten to the base reason for left wing bullying. All too often the left wing act in a bullying fashion out of some perceived (actually misperceieved) feeling of oppression and "fighting the power".

Haha. So McCarthy is (in part) responsible for left wing bullying? I have to wonder who is responsible for right wing bullying then.

But is that some progress I see in your post? Instead of saying "This is the root problem with lefties" you said "This is the root problem with so many lefties". Is this some unconscious acknowledgement that maybe, just maybe, not all "lefties" can be labelled in the same group? Could this be the start of the realization that bullying is the result of an extremist personality and not a particular ideology?

Given how you've been bullying the left on here I won't hold out hope.

[Black Dog]

All too often the left wing act in a bullying fashion out of some perceived (actually misperceieved) feeling of oppression and "fighting the power".

When in reality, this is an antiquated notion, evidenced purely by the outdateness of their "causes".

McCarthyism was 50 years ago.

Gay marriage? It's legal.

Abortion? On demand.

Climate Change? Have you read the newspaper lately?

This is the root problem with so many lefties: they take on this aggressive "speaking truth to power" stance because they've watched too many McCarthy movies of past eras or drank the "Brokeback"Kool-Aid. But in reality, what power are they speaking truth to? These battles are all long won.

First: I can think of a number of causes, foreign and domestic, that are a damn site more relevant and contemporary than McCarthyism. Cherry-picking a few select areas where progress has been made and trumpeting them as signs of the left wing's total victory just make syou look foolish. But then, if that was a concern, you probably wouldn't have started this thread.

[Oleg Bach]

First: I can think of a number of causes, foreign and domestic, that are a damn site more relevant and contemporary than McCarthyism. Cherry-picking a few select areas where progress has been made and trumpeting them as signs of the left wing's total victory just make syou look foolish. But then, if that was a concern, you probably wouldn't have started this thread.

Lefties are weaklings who need to function in packs - so yes they are bullies - at least a rightist has a good right jab and can take care of himself..lefties are inferiours.

[guyser]

..lefties are inferiours.

At least we stay on our meds, function in life, and not be a burden...sorry make that a parasite on our children.

Oh, and we can spell.

[DrGreenthumb]

Lefties are weaklings who need to function in packs - so yes they are bullies - at least a rightist has a good right jab and can take care of himself..lefties are inferiours.

Actually us lefties have huge dicks so we don't have to act macho or beat people up to prove to everyone how masculine we are . Also since we are rarely wrong we can usually win every argument with logic and facts , we don't need to bully people into doing what we want them to, we just convince them that its the right thing to do.

[GostHacked]

Not only are there bullies on both sides, but there are idiots as well.

[Pliny]

At least we stay on our meds, function in life, and not be a burden...sorry make that a parasite on our children.

Oh, and we can spell.

Only if you are over fifty.

[Pliny]

I think we are in a bit of a transition period here.

Socialism is the status quo today. Conservatism defends the status quo. Consequently, we have the "neocon". Socialists attempting to preserve the lib-left politically correct society are the neo-conservatives.

True conservatives or conservatives before the mid 1900's attempting to hold the mores and values of that time have lost ground to the lib-left socialist from then until now. Conservatives are a little more popular now and are regaining some ground but the neocons, with their roots in lib-left socialism, are digging in their heels to prevent the trend from reversing.

It has happened before when the Tories defended the Crown and to keep the English model of Government. That was the status quo then.

So now we have the neocons against the non-socialist traditional conservatives. Most people on the left don't even realize they are the neocons yet.

Watch for more and increased political bullying from both the neocons and the Conservatives. as they realize who is who and start to polarize - the conservatives moving left and the neocons moving to the more extreme right as they attempt to institute their socialist agenda of environmentalism, globalization and destruction of nationalist ideals.

[moderateamericain]

I think we are in a bit of a transition period here.

Socialism is the status quo today. Conservatism defends the status quo. Consequently, we have the "neocon". Socialists attempting to preserve the lib-left politically correct society are the neo-conservatives.

True conservatives or conservatives before the mid 1900's attempting to hold the mores and values of that time have lost ground to the lib-left socialist from then until now. Conservatives are a little more popular now and are regaining some ground but the neocons, with their roots in lib-left socialism, are digging in their heels to prevent the trend from reversing.

It has happened before when the Tories defended the Crown and to keep the English model of Government. That was the status quo then.

So now we have the neocons against the non-socialist traditional conservatives. Most people on the left don't even realize they are the neocons yet.

Watch for more and increased political bullying from both the neocons and the Conservatives. as they realize who is who and start to polarize - the conservatives moving left and the neocons moving to the more extreme right as they attempt to institute their socialist agenda of environmentalism, globalization and destruction of nationalist ideals.

Personally i think its not a left or right issue, anyone who has to bully or force someone to see his point. Really only proves two things. 1) he cant articulate a point in an intelligent manner. Therefore has to resolve to force to solve the argument. 2) He can't articulate his/her point because its flat out wrong.

[Pliny]

Personally i think its not a left or right issue, anyone who has to bully or force someone to see his point. Really only proves two things. 1) he cant articulate a point in an intelligent manner. Therefore has to resolve to force to solve the argument. 2) He can't articulate his/her point because its flat out wrong.

You're limiting the application of the term to forums are you not?

[blueblood]

I have a hard time accepting this part of your argument. My impression is that Prohibition failed because there was just too high a percentage of the American public who both hated and flaunted it! Also, that the criminal element had grown so rich and powerful because of it that the American government could not possibly make an effective attack on it.

The parallels with today are obvious. In my town the police discovered SEVERAL FLOORS OF AN APARTMENT BUILDING HAD BEEN RUNNING AS A GROW-OP!

The police cannot be everywhere and it all gets down to the money. If you are going to impose your own personal standards on SOMEONE ELSE then you are a fool if you expect them to meekly accept it. They will hate you for it and find ways around the law. You end up needing (and paying!) for a cop not just on every corner but in every home.

Prohibition was the direct cause of gangsters like Al Capone. He never would have been so rich and powerful without booze money. Prohibition was a result of the Temperance Movement achieving sufficient lobbying power. The problem was that it was a direct attack on the rights of an individual to go to hell his own way. In effect, the Temperance Movement achieved the political power to FORCE their neighbours to do what the TM thought was good for them!

Prohibition tactics are really just social fascism. This is made worse by such fascists taxing the hell out of the rest of us to pay for their futile charade of even making a dent in the "war on drugs".

Finally, there's no way stills could have become the main supply of alcohol. Stills require a reasonable amount of room, heat and ventilation from the heavy smells. Not the sort of industry that lends itself to city dwellers, or even many rural dwellers at the time who didn't own their own land.

Which exasperates the present problem. It is FAR easier to grow some plants in an urban dwelling than to run a still!

Fair enough, what I'm saying is look at the times before prohibition when it was a free for all. There was organized crime back then too and it was as big if not a bigger problem. The Wild West was close to outright anarchy. The law makers decided to drop the boom and hard, prohibition being one. The law makers were in effect choosing the lesser of two evils. The law makers also probably felt it was better that the cops go around chasing bootleggers rather than trying to control what used to be anarchy. I believe that the law makers at that time were trying to control what crime was actually taking place, and I say again it was better to be running around after booze makers than after something much worse.

Which is why I believe pot should still be illegal, much better to be running around after this which doesn't really in all reality hurt anyone. Organized crime will always exist no matter what's legal and what's not legal. I'd rather the cops run around after kids on pot (which cops don't really enforce very hard anymore), then what's next up the ladder.

[Wild Bill]

Fair enough, what I'm saying is look at the times before prohibition when it was a free for all. There was organized crime back then too and it was as big if not a bigger problem. The Wild West was close to outright anarchy. The law makers decided to drop the boom and hard, prohibition being one. The law makers were in effect choosing the lesser of two evils. The law makers also probably felt it was better that the cops go around chasing bootleggers rather than trying to control what used to be anarchy. I believe that the law makers at that time were trying to control what crime was actually taking place, and I say again it was better to be running around after booze makers than after something much worse.

I suspect that your vision of those old days is pure Hollywood! There was no way people could have been being shot en masse down every street, every night that the saloons were open.

From what I've read about those days, people for the most part were pretty law abiding. There were some criminals of course but there was also a lot of quick and effective vigilante justice. People were a lot more self-reliant than perhaps we are today. They had to be to survive!

If some punk was killing down at the saloon I would think that a couple of the locals would have simply shot him and thrown him in a ditch. Problem solved and everyone else could get back to planning the next church picnic.

[bk59]

Fair enough, what I'm saying is look at the times before prohibition when it was a free for all. There was organized crime back then too and it was as big if not a bigger problem. The Wild West was close to outright anarchy. The law makers decided to drop the boom and hard, prohibition being one. The law makers were in effect choosing the lesser of two evils. The law makers also probably felt it was better that the cops go around chasing bootleggers rather than trying to control what used to be anarchy. I believe that the law makers at that time were trying to control what crime was actually taking place, and I say again it was better to be running around after booze makers than after something much worse.

Which is why I believe pot should still be illegal, much better to be running around after this which doesn't really in all reality hurt anyone. Organized crime will always exist no matter what's legal and what's not legal. I'd rather the cops run around after kids on pot (which cops don't really enforce very hard anymore), then what's next up the ladder.

The Wild West wasn't quite that wild. It wasn't even notable for vigilante justice as Wild Bill has guessed. In fact, many western towns made it illegal to carry guns in town. Not only that, but I'm not sure I see the connection between the wild west of the 19th century and prohibition which the US started in 1920.

But the thing I am most confused about is your position regarding how the police should spend their time and resources. You think that they should be concentrating on the minor stuff and letting the major stuff go unchecked? If something "doesn't really... hurt anyone" then why should the police "run after" those people? Personally, I think most people would rather the police run after "what's next up the ladder" then waste their time on minor stuff that doesn't hurt anyone. That is their job!

[blueblood]

I suspect that your vision of those old days is pure Hollywood! There was no way people could have been being shot en masse down every street, every night that the saloons were open.

From what I've read about those days, people for the most part were pretty law abiding. There were some criminals of course but there was also a lot of quick and effective vigilante justice. People were a lot more self-reliant than perhaps we are today. They had to be to survive!

If some punk was killing down at the saloon I would think that a couple of the locals would have simply shot him and thrown him in a ditch. Problem solved and everyone else could get back to planning the next church picnic.

What you are describing in your statement is the crux of the problem. According to the law Vigilante Justice is not acceptable in modern Canadian society, no matter how quick and effective it is. Nevertheless it was still a gong show, Hollywood has to get its ideas from somewhere...

[blueblood]

The Wild West wasn't quite that wild. It wasn't even notable for vigilante justice as Wild Bill has guessed. In fact, many western towns made it illegal to carry guns in town. Not only that, but I'm not sure I see the connection between the wild west of the 19th century and prohibition which the US started in 1920.

But the thing I am most confused about is your position regarding how the police should spend their time and resources. You think that they should be concentrating on the minor stuff and letting the major stuff go unchecked? If something "doesn't really... hurt anyone" then why should the police "run after" those people? Personally, I think most people would rather the police run after "what's next up the ladder" then waste their time on minor stuff that doesn't hurt anyone. That is their job!

I see the connection, 1920 isn't that far off from the wild west when you think about it. The political will was there to enact prohibition and lawmakers were willing to give it a shot. As for it being a gong show, does any of the going ons of those days still exist?

Of course, I know what I'm saying concerning this is pure speculation.

My position is all the aspects of organized crime are going to exist no matter what. I see organized crime as a business and a business makes money as efficiently as it can. When everything is legal and is a free for all, that's when organized crime can be real dangerous as per the wild west example. When booze was illegal, it is much easier for organized crime to provide a business. Why would they be concerned with doing things they did in the old west when bootlegging was more profitable and much easier to do. I'll go out on a limb and say during prohibition most crime was revolved around alcohol which really doesn't hurt the customer and keeps the gangsters busy with that. With booze legal, I believe its gone a step up, the same thing is occuring with pot which is alright, but now there are other substances coming out that are much more dangerous. In a nutshell what I'm saying its better to go around chasing gangsters doing whatever it is they do concerning pot, which does not harm the consumer than to have a double whammy chasing gangsters doing it is whatever they do concerning harsher drugs which will probably have a larger following and actually do harm the consumer. Lesser of two evils.

The Argentinian president in her "infinite wisdom" is wanting to legalize all drug use in her country. This is the same president who wanted to slap an export tax on exported goods so that the country would be full of cheap goods, in the process screwing over the producer. I am curious to see what will happen with organized crime there, not to mention other factors of that country.

Edited August 12, 2008 by blueblood

[bk59]

Nevertheless it was still a gong show, Hollywood has to get its ideas from somewhere...

Well... maybe not. Yeah, Hollywood has to get its ideas from somewhere, but that doesn't mean that aliens have ever invaded the earth on the 4th of July or that talking monkeys ever ruled the earth. All I'm saying is that the wild west wasn't nearly as wild as popular opinion would have us believe.

I see the connection, 1920 isn't that far off from the wild west when you think about it. The political will was there to enact prohibition and lawmakers were willing to give it a shot. As for it being a gong show, does any of the going ons of those days still exist?

That political will mostly came from the temperance movement which was concerned with religion and morality. Sure criminal behaviour was a factor, but not necessarily the dominant factor. The temperance movement was concerned with all immoral behaviour, not simply organized crime. (How did we get to discussing this again? Thread drift is an interesting thing to watch...)

Of course, I know what I'm saying concerning this is pure speculation.

My position is all the aspects of organized crime are going to exist no matter what. I see organized crime as a business and a business makes money as efficiently as it can. When everything is legal and is a free for all, that's when organized crime can be real dangerous as per the wild west example. When booze was illegal, it is much easier for organized crime to provide a business. Why would they be concerned with doing things they did in the old west when bootlegging was more profitable and much easier to do. I'll go out on a limb and say during prohibition most crime was revolved around alcohol which really doesn't hurt the customer and keeps the gangsters busy with that. With booze legal, I believe its gone a step up, the same thing is occuring with pot which is alright, but now there are other substances coming out that are much more dangerous. In a nutshell what I'm saying its better to go around chasing gangsters doing whatever it is they do concerning pot, which does not harm the consumer than to have a double whammy chasing gangsters doing it is whatever they do concerning harsher drugs which will probably have a larger following and actually do harm the consumer. Lesser of two evils.

OK, I think I see where you are. It isn't quite what I thought you were saying before. And I'll admit that this makes more sense than what I thought you were originally saying.

Still though, I'm not sure I can agree. Even though pot may be illegal that does not mean that organized crime has limited itself to pot. When you say that it is better for OC to focus on pot than harsher drugs that may be a nice idea, but in practice I think OC is more than capable of focusing on both pot and the harsher drugs. So why make something illegal just for the sake of making it illegal?

You said it yourself: "My position is all the aspects of organized crime are going to exist no matter what." If OC will still bribe, murder, etc., "no matter what" then why should we give them another source of income? Wouldn't it be better to take that income ourselves (in terms of pot producers, sellers, and tax income)? We could then use that extra money to help combat OC or other things.

It is nice to think that if we make something relatively harmless illegal then OC will focus on that. But in reality OC does not just limit itself to one specific area or drug. Rather than spend money to police something relatively harmless, and give OC more income, why not take that income for ourselves and spend the money on stopping OC from the more harmful stuff (which they are doing anyway)?

[Pliny]

How does organized crime affect you? Mostly it provides competition for the government.

In my view, the primary reason government fights organized crime is because it can't track the flow of cash. Al Capone was finally indicted for income tax evasion. Why couldn't they pin him for criminal activity, he obviously was a crime boss? The secondary reason is appearances. Government has to look socially responsible.

Now it can't be said that people engaged in fighting organized crime and some politicians themselves don't have a genuine concern about it and pro-actively engage against it. I would like to know why it becomes a growing problem instead of being curtailed? It seems that all social problems addressed by government are exacerbated rather than alleviated, despite promises to the contrary.

I see, with increased socialism, increased costs to the taxpayer in the form of taxes and the ones paying the taxes are not receiving benefit equal to what they feel they are contributing. Generally, everyone gets some benefit but it seems a lot of waste occurs or a perceived undeserved benefit is granted to special interests and do not benefit the whole. Out of this a person may feel justification for disliking government. The left loves to engage government to create an egalitarian society. They use government to bring about what they desire. I suppose as anyone does. But depending upon their political philosophy what is desired is what makes the left bullies. They wish to enforce egalitarianism, social justice, economic justice upon society. The right, who are really still left of centre, today's conservatives, tend toward less social engineering and are less the bully in comparison to those further left on the political spectrum. Government by it's nature is a bully. The bigger the State gets the more bullying you can expect.