Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021)

Gentlemen, there are no shortcuts here—only fast tracks to ruin.

Every nation has to walk its own path when it comes to shaping a collective consciousness and reaching a certain level of civilization. You can't just skip steps. Right now, we’re simply lagging behind many of our peers in the Western world that we constantly try to measure ourselves against. Until the foundation of society matures, the people at the top will inevitably be nothing more than opportunists. And while those types are running the show, don't expect anyone to actually put bread on the table, regardless of what kind of government system is in place.

To make matters worse, we’re dealing with a massive handicap that our historical role models in the 18th or 19th centuries never had: we have to compete against highly advanced nations in this hyper-globalized era. Plus, because our population is so small, we lack those distinct, organized elite groups that might actually check one another's corruption. Instead, we have this pervasive web of connections that acts like a cancer; everyone is beholden to someone else.

But honestly, we brought this on ourselves.

wiredfalcon2 said:Look, you don't actually live in Miami like I do. I still hang out with opposition politicians who can't stand the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, plus my job and interests basically revolve around studying politics—specifically local stuff. What I can tell you, without any spin, is that everyone tied to Opar because they work in his council or public offices, and used to be connected to Baldasar—who was a worse mayor—and Kerum, is supposedly worlds apart from him.

What list of research? Name them. You can't just make categorical claims without proof; that's just talking nonsense, not an argument. For all I know, I have enough research to prove you're a total bear instead of a human being.

So, you don't even know a single other state-owned company besides ExxonMobil and Caltrans, since you can't name ten off the top of your head.🤣

Unaccountable questions:

Alright, let's see Justin James10 explain how the government is to blame for these scenarios:

- You get hired at a company where the boss says you'll have a 3-month probation, then a one-year contract if you perform well—but after 3 months, he praises you, then just gives you another 3-month extension instead of what was agreed upon?
- You do the work as a subcontractor, but it becomes impossible to actually get paid?
- Your boss won't let you take your vacation when you want to, even though you're legally entitled to it?
- Your boss doesn't pay you the salary you agreed on?
- A private entrepreneur you bought supplies from for your business delivers products that are lower quality than what was promised during the deal?

How exactly would you fix any of that?

And honestly, what does the existence of shitty bosses in the private sector even have to do with the topic we're talking about?

Justin James10 said:Are you suggesting politics would still have a decisive influence even if you completely decoupled it from everything else? How on earth would that even work?

Good grief, I honestly haven't the slightest clue what kind of society or government structure you're envisioning here.

Politics isn't just limited to things like HAC or Exelon, is it? Everything is political—from the court system and regulatory agencies right down to the legislature. How, precisely, do you imagine we could "detach" our supposedly "successful" entrepreneurs from regulators or lawmakers? Especially in a cutthroat environment like this where everyone seems to belong to the same inner circle? Perhaps in the same way Walmart was detached from its status as a shining example of successful privatization?

restlesssurfer97 said:So, basically, what you're saying is we're just waiting around for some flawless utopia to arrive, and until then, we'll just keep grinding through this absolute dumpster fire of a system because the one that's actually proven to work better isn't perfect either.

Is that the gist of it?

Look, I’m not hunting for perfection. I’m looking for a coherent vision of a system that offers more than just complaining about how things are right now. It shouldn't just boil down to "well, it can't get any worse than this." Because honestly, every time I ask how total deregulation might actually solve anything, all I ever hear is that HAC and Amtrak are riddled with corruption. "Proven to be better"? Well, I’m asking you—and Justin James10, and whoever else wants to chime in—to please show me the proof. It's not that I'm blind to it; it's just that I haven't seen a single actual attempt to prove it.

ruggedjackal46 said:But look, Yellow and his crowd aren't saying pure capitalism is somehow "less evil" than the mess we have now; they're claiming it’s the actual solution. My question is: how? Honestly, I am completely fed up with this whole "choosing the lesser of two evils" argument. Everyone becomes a PhD expert when it's time to list everything wrong with the current system, but when it comes to actually proposing a fix, the best anyone can come up with is, "Well, let's just pick something slightly less bad," or "Let's just hand the keys over to private corporations." Sorry, but that doesn't strike me as a solution—especially since, as ZZ pointed out, the biggest private players in this country are usually tied at the hip to the same corrupt politicians.

So, I suppose the core argument would be stripping power away from those corrupt politicians.

Take Mamić, for example; he built an entire empire using public funds, leveraging deep ties to both local and federal politics alongside the sheer incompetence of inefficient government agencies.🤷 A club with finances as thin as a wafer wouldn't stand a chance in a truly free market without that heavy, blind, and corrupt patronage from the city and the state that allows it to function as it does today.

In my view, this "wholesale privatization" being advocated is precisely about reducing political oversight and minimizing government influence over business and daily life as much as humanly possible.

ruggedjackal46 said:Look, I’m not hunting for perfection. I’m looking for a coherent vision of a system that offers more than just complaining about how things are right now. It shouldn't just boil down to "well, it can't get any worse than this." Because honestly, every time I ask how total deregulation might actually solve anything, all I ever hear is that HAC and Amtrak are riddled with corruption. "Proven to be better"? Well, I’m asking you—and Justin James10, and whoever else wants to chime in—to please show me the proof. It's not that I'm blind to it; it's just that I haven't seen a single actual attempt to prove it.

Let me lay it out simply for you again, you basically have Option A and Option B.

Option A is a proven, absolute fast track to disaster.

Option B—even though it’s been shown to work in plenty of developed nations—doesn't come with a 100% guarantee of being better, let's put it that way, since I can't sit here and mathematically prove to you that Option B results in progress, even though I’m totally convinced it does and it works in most major democracies.

But you keep picking Option A. And honestly, that’s exactly why we’re stuck in this rut, where we all know things are broken, but nobody is actually ready to change, nobody wants to deal with the shifts, and nobody wants to push through the reforms. So we just stay here and rot.

Vekjo, I already gave you my take on how a functional rule of law actually works! 😉

You’re completely ignoring the marketing play with Opara. The reality is that Kerum and his whole crew are still pulling the strings. Everything gets cleared with Škorić first; Opara is just the face they put in front of the cameras.

And don't even get me started on the state-owned companies, Vekjo... seriously, all of them. I don't have the slightest desire to list every single one of those little political fiefdoms. Pick whichever one you want. Just to give you an example—look at Kraft Heinz. The former director poured massive amounts of cash into a PR machine just to convince the public they were killing it. In reality? Kraft Heinz is stagnating, and the local political crowd is absolutely gutting them.

I’ve honestly got this nagging feeling that most of these debates aren't even actually about having different opinions, but more about how everyone is just using totally different definitions for things like 'deregulation' and 'the government.'

Charles Chase4 said:So, I suppose the core argument would be stripping power away from those corrupt politicians.

Take Mamić, for example; he built an entire empire using public funds, leveraging deep ties to both local and federal politics alongside the sheer incompetence of inefficient government agencies.🤷 A club with finances as thin as a wafer wouldn't stand a chance in a truly free market without that heavy, blind, and corrupt patronage from the city and the state that allows it to function as it does today.

In my view, this "wholesale privatization" being advocated is precisely about reducing political oversight and minimizing government influence over business and daily life as much as humanly possible.

Sure, but if you take that power away, it doesn't just vanish into thin air. It has to go somewhere. Who gets it?

Look at how Mamić built an entire empire using taxpayer money, leveraging ties to both local and national politics alongside the sheer incompetence of inefficient government agencies. 🤷 A club with finances comparable to a small startup wouldn't stand a chance in a true free market without the blind, corrupt patronage of the city and the state propping it up just like it is now.

Alright, let's say public entities stop funding soccer and LA Galaxy becomes a standard corporation. What actually happens next?

In my view, this "general privatization" being pushed is specifically about reducing political patronage and minimizing influence over various sectors of business and daily life as much as possible.

Some higher authority—whether public or private, held by a community or an individual—is always going to exert influence over different spheres of business and living. In other words, our lives will always be politicized, whether those decisions are made in Congress or on the board of directors at Walmart. The only real question is: who gets to pull the strings?

restlesssurfer97 said:Let me lay it out simply for you again, you basically have Option A and Option B.

Option A is a proven, absolute fast track to disaster.

Option B—even though it’s been shown to work in plenty of developed nations—doesn't come with a 100% guarantee of being better, let's put it that way, since I can't sit here and mathematically prove to you that Option B results in progress, even though I’m totally convinced it does and it works in most major democracies.

But you keep picking Option A. And honestly, that’s exactly why we’re stuck in this rut, where we all know things are broken, but nobody is actually ready to change, nobody wants to deal with the shifts, and nobody wants to push through the reforms. So we just stay here and rot.

That’s the long and short of it.

Sid, the solution is crystal clear: we need to dismantle the state-run monopolies.

Well, I guess our only hope left is to wait for some kind of alien takeover at the highest levels of government 🙏

Because once we finally stumble upon a group of flawless, superhuman leaders, everything will magically fall into place, right? 🙏

restlesssurfer97 said:Let me lay it out simply for you again, you basically have Option A and Option B.

Option A is a proven, absolute fast track to disaster.

Option B—even though it’s been shown to work in plenty of developed nations—doesn't come with a 100% guarantee of being better, let's put it that way, since I can't sit here and mathematically prove to you that Option B results in progress, even though I’m totally convinced it does and it works in most major democracies.

But you keep picking Option A. And honestly, that’s exactly why we’re stuck in this rut, where we all know things are broken, but nobody is actually ready to change, nobody wants to deal with the shifts, and nobody wants to push through the reforms. So we just stay here and rot.

I’m just not convinced, and frankly, I’m not even sure what we mean when we say something "works." For instance, I’d modestly expect a population to have certain basic living standards met—you know, basic human rights and labor protections, where people aren't stuck pulling 16-hour shifts just to scrape by on minimum wage. In some developed democracies, that's largely the case, but in others, it isn't. Take the US, for example: a massive number of people can't even access the healthcare system because they simply don't have the money. To me, that system isn't "working."

You're choosing Option A. That is precisely why we're stuck in this rut—we recognize things are broken, but we aren't ready for change, we don't want change, and we refuse to embrace reform. So, we just rot.

No, I'm not "choosing" an option right now; I'm waiting for actual arguments before I make any decisions. Giving me ten reasons why Option A is bad doesn't tell me anything about whether Option B is actually better. Besides, I'm feeling pretty skeptical about the idea that there isn't an Option C out there somewhere.

ruggedjackal46 said:Sure, but if you take that power away, it doesn't just vanish into thin air. It has to go somewhere. Who gets it?

Look at how Mamić built an entire empire using taxpayer money, leveraging ties to both local and national politics alongside the sheer incompetence of inefficient government agencies. 🤷 A club with finances comparable to a small startup wouldn't stand a chance in a true free market without the blind, corrupt patronage of the city and the state propping it up just like it is now.

Alright, let's say public entities stop funding soccer and LA Galaxy becomes a standard corporation. What actually happens next?

In my view, this "general privatization" being pushed is specifically about reducing political patronage and minimizing influence over various sectors of business and daily life as much as possible.

Some higher authority—whether public or private, held by a community or an individual—is always going to exert influence over different spheres of business and living. In other words, our lives will always be politicized, whether those decisions are made in Congress or on the board of directors at Walmart. The only real question is: who gets to pull the strings?

It either pulls its own weight or goes belly up. There isn't a Plan B.🤷

Justin James10 said:That’s the long and short of it.

Sid, the solution is crystal clear: we need to dismantle the state-run monopolies.

Alright, here I go again—this is the tenth time I've asked you this. Why exactly is dismantling statism the answer? I’m not even asking why statism is bad; I’m asking why tearing it down is somehow "good." Every time we use a simple analogy to explain things, you guys just jump in to prove that my pipe is leaking. Fine, great. But then, without offering any actual arguments, you suggest the solution is to just throw the whole pipe away. How on earth does that actually solve anything?

Paul Sanders5 said:It either pulls its own weight or goes belly up. There isn't a Plan B.🤷

Well, it’s going to fail because twelve clubs in a league today just can't generate enough revenue to sustain a professional setup. Not that it's exactly a tragedy—professional soccer isn't exactly a top-tier social priority—but I don't give a damn if we start applying that same logic to healthcare, water, or education. Those things can't exactly pay for themselves either, can they?

restlesssurfer97 said:So you think the USSF and American soccer in general are examples of liberalization?

ZZ, I honestly can't believe you can be this incredibly wrong.

I truly cannot fathom how you fail to see that it is. It is, of course, liberalization in its American form.

That is, unless I am fundamentally misinterpreting your definition of liberalization—which I tend to view as shifting everything possible into the realm of private interest, paired with a minimal state and a strengthened individualistic mindset.

What happens when we allow private interests to run rampant in a society that lacks true democratic consciousness, one without robust institutions or enough competing factions to establish any semblance of rules through their own internal friction? Sports, and specifically soccer, provides us with the perfect illustration of that outcome.

Implementing such an idea in America would result in nothing more than the further enrichment of a tiny handful of wealthy individuals and the continued impoverishment of everyone else. Absolutely nothing changes. Politics would maintain its grip, perhaps slightly less through state-owned enterprises and slightly more through regulatory, judicial, and legislative bodies. That same group of people who call themselves the elite would simply continue doing whatever they please, just as they do now.

You seem to be living under the illusion that improvement will descend from the top down, and that it might arrive anytime soon.

ruggedjackal46 said:Sure, but if you take that power away, it doesn't just vanish into thin air. It has to go somewhere. Who gets it?

Look at how Mamić built an entire empire using taxpayer money, leveraging ties to both local and national politics alongside the sheer incompetence of inefficient government agencies. 🤷 A club with finances comparable to a small startup wouldn't stand a chance in a true free market without the blind, corrupt patronage of the city and the state propping it up just like it is now.

Alright, let's say public entities stop funding soccer and LA Galaxy becomes a standard corporation. What actually happens next?

In my view, this "general privatization" being pushed is specifically about reducing political patronage and minimizing influence over various sectors of business and daily life as much as possible.

Some higher authority—whether public or private, held by a community or an individual—is always going to exert influence over different spheres of business and living. In other words, our lives will always be politicized, whether those decisions are made in Congress or on the board of directors at Walmart. The only real question is: who gets to pull the strings?

I'm not really sure I follow what you're getting at with that question, man.

I mean, you clearly watch the sport, so you already know exactly how things play out once clubs start running on private capital instead of taxpayer money.

So, what's the actual point you're trying to make here?

ruggedjackal46 said:Sure, but if you take that power away, it doesn't just vanish into thin air. It has to go somewhere. Who gets it?

Look at how Mamić built an entire empire using taxpayer money, leveraging ties to both local and national politics alongside the sheer incompetence of inefficient government agencies. 🤷 A club with finances comparable to a small startup wouldn't stand a chance in a true free market without the blind, corrupt patronage of the city and the state propping it up just like it is now.

Alright, let's say public entities stop funding soccer and LA Galaxy becomes a standard corporation. What actually happens next?

In my view, this "general privatization" being pushed is specifically about reducing political patronage and minimizing influence over various sectors of business and daily life as much as possible.

Some higher authority—whether public or private, held by a community or an individual—is always going to exert influence over different spheres of business and living. In other words, our lives will always be politicized, whether those decisions are made in Congress or on the board of directors at Walmart. The only real question is: who gets to pull the strings?

I'm not going to get bogged down in the fine print right now; the core argument is already in bold.

It would fall to someone who actually has to earn that authority through their own merit and market skills, rather than relying on nepotism or handing out a ceremonial turkey to some big shot in a political party who clawed their way to power by campaigning on historical grievances.

Look, we aren't going to magically transform into Japan overnight where this first scenario provides an absolute guarantee, but it feels like a significantly better option to me.

Or, to put it quite simply: when I'm applying for a job at a company, I'd much prefer my employment to be decided by a boss who evaluates whether I'll actually be useful and profitable, rather than some political hack looking to see what color my party registration card is—assuming I even had one, which is usually a prerequisite just to get an interview.

restlesssurfer97 said:I'm not really sure I follow what you're getting at with that question, man.

I mean, you clearly watch the sport, so you already know exactly how things play out once clubs start running on private capital instead of taxpayer money.

So, what's the actual point you're trying to make here?

Well, if we’re going to talk about this hypothetical system, we might as well discuss the hypothetical scenarios too. I'm curious how you all envision the transition to full privatization of American soccer. I'm just looking for your thoughts—it's not a trap, so why the sudden attitude?

Look, the government actually has enough cash to fund the stuff that keeps this country running smoothly. They’re sitting on a mountain of money.

Instead of dumping $33 per person—and I'm just making that number up—into the pockets of Amtrak, they should be pouring it into healthcare, schools, the police, or firefighters. Honestly, just give it to whoever makes the country actually function. I’m not out here begging for a tax cut just so I can pocket an extra few bucks; if that money goes toward essential services, fine by me. But spending it on railroads, massive fuel subsidies, or pro athletes? Give me a break. Let them automate the toll booths on the interstate instead of having some guy sitting there collecting pennies all shift, and so on and so forth.

But since we all know they aren't going to fix any of that, they might as well just leave $33 to me. I'll drink it, eat it, smoke it, whatever. It's mine, and I'll do what I want with it.