Antilibertarianism

[DeadLucky]

There was no racism involved, I assure you. Ethnicity wasn't even in my thoughts, in fact, I thought I was describing typical "White Trash." Perhaps you should look at whatever prejudices made you jump to that conclusion, hmm?

And my ass is full of other things I'm crammed there. Like witty sayings, poop, and occasionally remotes after I got really annoyed at World of Warcraft.

Incidentally, I do also care about my fellow human beings. I just don't think that giving people money for doing nothing encourages people to acquire and hold down jobs.

- DeadLucky

[LMNO]

You're right.  Better to let them and their children starve to death.

After all, they deserve it for being so lazy they can't find jobs, right?

[Cramulus]

you're too good to be "begging for scraps" -- that's rich.

you could get the ax at any time, man

your life could be instantly and completely transformed by an accident, a death, a promotion, any number of black swans

you may not be able to find work afterwards. Would you be too proud to beg for scraps then? When the cupboard is full of ramen noodles and the student loan collectors ring you three times a day?


I have to admit to a little offense at this characterization. I am a competent, intelligent, college educated young professional. In January 2009, my company cut my hours -- not because of anything I'd done, but because like many companies in 2009, we were bleeding money. And the low level employees are always the most expendable. So they saved somebody else's job by demoting me to part time and taking away my benefits.

I collected part-time unemployment while I looked for full time work. And you know what? there was dick out there. I couldn't find work. Not because I was lazy, there just weren't any jobs for me. Your application sits in a stack with 300+ other people's applications. You get so excited when somebody actually calls you in for an interview, you put on your best suit, your best self, and then you find out they're interviewing 13 people for the same position that day.

So I could have probably gotten a shitty job working in retail or food service, but shit - I'm a 28 year old college grad. I'd be making the same pay in a whole week as I used to in 2 or 3 days. Once you go down that hill, it's really hard to climb back up. Instead I got some unemployment to get me through the hard times, and now that the economy has relaxed a bit, my company hired me back full time. So for me, the story has a happy ending. But it didn't for a lot of people.

I don't begrudge people for not having a job when there's no jobs to go around. It's not a measure of skill or worth. We are trapped in the belly of the beast, and the beast is bleeding to death.

[Vene]

Oh, and before I forget, the whole "Sue anyone who you possibly can" thing needs to go away. Fuck that. Suck it up. Its just a little bit of coffee in your lap, of course the fucking coffee is hot. You're obviously just greedy and lazy, and therefore looking for any excuse to make your problems someone elses' and capitalize on it.

Actually, that case was a pretty good example of when you're supposed to sue.

"Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin as she sat in the puddle of hot liquid for over 90 seconds, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin. Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds. Two years of medical treatment followed."

Frivolous lawsuits may exist, but that ain't one of them.

[Vene]

There was no racism involved, I assure you. Ethnicity wasn't even in my thoughts, in fact, I thought I was describing typical "White Trash." Perhaps you should look at whatever prejudices made you jump to that conclusion, hmm?

And my ass is full of other things I'm crammed there. Like witty sayings, poop, and occasionally remotes after I got really annoyed at World of Warcraft.

Incidentally, I do also care about my fellow human beings. I just don't think that giving people money for doing nothing encourages people to acquire and hold down jobs.

- DeadLucky

Yeah, fuck off.

I'm a college graduate who has been looking for work in the past year, living with the girlfriend in Minnesota who is on disability. We eat only because I got on food stamps. Is her completely unpredictable sleep cycle is a result of her being lazy? As in, one day she could be asleep from 10p to 8a the next it could be from 4a to 4p. Kind of hard to keep a job when you can't schedule anything. Or, wait, I'm the lazy one, right? Despite applying for jobs every day, despite looking for jobs outside of my field and looking for local, part time work. Right? You just said that I should roll over and die. You just said that she should roll over and die.

Oh, by the way, that whole thing with social security, do you know the average amount of time somebody is on disability? 5 years. That's it, then they go back to work. Unless you're also trying to say that retirees should also go back to work or starve? You do know history, right? You do realize that's a big part of why it was implemented, right? It was because the elderly were unable to work anymore, but without any means of income, they died horrible deaths. Social security prevents this from happening.

Christ, I heard enough about death panels during the health care debate, but, seriously, it's the attitude like this that actually did sentence grandma to death.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Incidentally, I do also care about my fellow human beings. I just don't think that giving people money for doing nothing encourages people to acquire and hold down jobs.

- DeadLucky

I think that this is an inaccurate oversimplification.

At any rate, to respond to the thread in general, I've noticed that there seems to be this sort of you can have more rights and less services or more services and less rights. I think that's a false correlation. I'm no Swede and I've never been to Sweden, but I'm under the impression that they have both a lot of rights and a lot of services. I might be missing something here, but I don't think being taxed is a violation of my rights.

As for how to improve things? Here are some of my suggestions:
-Feel free to blame politicians (as long as its the right politicians), that's fine and they are part of it. But remember that their job is to enact policy, not enforce it. Hold the beauracracy to be more accountable, and make it more efficient. No need to shrink or grow government if the beauracracy is working smoothly. More bang for your buck.
-The people who do vote usually vote for a party, not a candidate. This, I think, is true of independents as well, it's just which party is switchable depending on political climate. So, get rid of primaries. Have a wider selection of candidates and then have each ballot rank them in order of preference (drawback-requires the average person to keep track of multiple candidates and issues). Make elections a holiday so that a greater amount of people get the day off and can go out and vote. Set aside a certain amount of tax money for each candidate to campaign with and that's all they can use. Takes the corporations out, allows someone to run regardless of economic status, and provides equal footing for all candidates.
-Stronger multi-party system. The Democrat-Republican thing isn't enough, and it seems like the average person will pick their party depending on how they feel about abortion, guns, and occasionally the death penalty. People need to see that there is a wider spectrum and its not just a this-or-that sort of thing. I'm not a Democrat but I'll generally vote for one over a Republican if I only have two choices, since they are closer (but not by much) to my politics. Anyway, there are sub-parties in both the Democratic and Republican Parties. Politics shouldn't be dumbed down. If you dumb down shit, people will get used to dumbed down shit and not think about it.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Oh, and before I forget, the whole "Sue anyone who you possibly can" thing needs to go away. Fuck that. Suck it up. Its just a little bit of coffee in your lap, of course the fucking coffee is hot. You're obviously just greedy and lazy, and therefore looking for any excuse to make your problems someone elses' and capitalize on it.

Actually, that case was a pretty good example of when you're supposed to sue.

"Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin as she sat in the puddle of hot liquid for over 90 seconds, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin. Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds. Two years of medical treatment followed."

Frivolous lawsuits may exist, but that ain't one of them.

The injury wasn't the reason McDonalds was liable. The policy that franchises must serve coffee at 180F (as opposed to a more normal 140) is why they were found liable. A liquid at 180F will cause 3rd degree burns in 12-15 seconds according to the defense. The defense then claimed that coffee should be served at 140F which would not cause such burns as quickly, giving the victim time to remove the coffee from the skin... The jury bought it.

Later, it was determined that most coffee at many establishments (and home coffee pots) produce and keep coffee at about 180F. The British suit filed later (based on the success of the American one) failed, because the claims made in the US one were questionable.

Personally, I think that if you spill HOT liquid on yourself, you're at fault. In the case of the woman at McDonalds, she was taking the lid off after sticking the cup between her knees. I don't think companies should be liable for stupidity, no matter how much damage may occur. If the spill had been caused by a faulty cup or lid then it would be McDonalds fault, which is pretty much what the later UK suit determined.

Also the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in the US ruled against the claim that 180F is too hot for coffee. (Which I know only cause Wikipedia says so...)

Lawsuits against companies should be valid in cases of negligence, intentional or unintentional. There is nothing that indicates McDonalds was negligent in the coffee case, they brewed the coffee to a widely accepted standard temperature and served it in a safe cup.
---------------------------

As for the overall discussion... I agree with Twiddleton in the debate of Services vs Freedoms. A government that operated from a "I'm OK, You're OK' paradigm should be able to maximize both. However, as I stated before, we have a government which often sees its citizens as the enemy. In that sort of environment, the government will have no problem reducing freedoms and providing half-assed services.

The flaw lies not in the Libertarian vs Socialism philosophies of government, but in the most basic philosophy of government rule... why does the government exist, to serve the people or to rule the people? The US, notwithstanding Lincoln's awesome speech... falls into the latter. Socialism could be accomplished without the sacrifice of rights and freedoms, but only with a government that works from the service paradigm.

[Vene]

-Stronger multi-party system. The Democrat-Republican thing isn't enough, and it seems like the average person will pick their party depending on how they feel about abortion, guns, and occasionally the death penalty. People need to see that there is a wider spectrum and its not just a this-or-that sort of thing. I'm not a Democrat but I'll generally vote for one over a Republican if I only have two choices, since they are closer (but not by much) to my politics. Anyway, there are sub-parties in both the Democratic and Republican Parties. Politics shouldn't be dumbed down. If you dumb down shit, people will get used to dumbed down shit and not think about it.

This is why I like how Denmark does it.

For their parliament, the citizens vote for a candidate depending on their constituency, but not all seats are selected this way. Of the 179 seats, there is only direct representation for 139 of them. The remaining 40 are selected according to the proportion of the vote that went to the various parties (as long as the party got a minimum of 2% of the vote). So, like, if we're going to use our system, if the green party got 10% of the national vote, but no seats, they get 18 of those seats. The reason I like this is it makes it so that parties other than the big two matter and minorities that normally get no say in things have at least some representation, not lesser of two evils, actual representation.

[Vene]

Socialism could be accomplished without the sacrifice of rights and freedoms, but only with a government that works from the service paradigm.

That sounds a bit like social democracy, at least, to me. I could be reading things into it that aren't there.

In general, contemporary social democrats support:

    * A mixed economy consisting of both private enterprise and publicly owned or subsidized programs of education, universal health care, child care and related social services for all citizens.
    * An extensive system of social security (although usually not to the extent advocated by socialists), with the stated goal of counteracting the effects of poverty and insuring the citizens against loss of income following illness, unemployment or retirement.
    * Government bodies that regulate private enterprise in the interests of workers and consumers by ensuring labor rights (i.e. supporting worker access to trade unions), consumer protections, and fair market competition.
    * Environmentalism and environmental protection laws; for example, funding for alternative energy resources and laws designed to combat global warming.
    * A value-added/progressive taxation system to fund government expenditures.
    * A secular and a socially progressive policy.
    * Immigration and multiculturalism.
    * Youth rights and lowering the voting age.
    * Fair trade over free trade.
    * A foreign policy supporting the promotion of democracy, the protection of human rights and where possible, effective multilateralism.
    * Advocacy of social justice, human rights, social rights, civil rights and civil liberties.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Socialism could be accomplished without the sacrifice of rights and freedoms, but only with a government that works from the service paradigm.

That sounds a bit like social democracy, at least, to me. I could be reading things into it that aren't there.

I think its something more fundamental that a political philosophy. A political philosophy is a series of ideas that a government or party would like... its their Brass Ring. What I'm thinking about lies deeper, at the heart of how government and people perceive each other.

http://deoxy.org/raw1.htm

On that chart, we'd need to see a government (and more importantly its populace) sitting in the upper right quadrant. The US Government (generally) seems to operate from the upper left quadrant while the populace seems split between the two lower quadrants (perhaps more anti-government thought on the lower left and pro-government thought  on the lower right).

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Socialism could be accomplished without the sacrifice of rights and freedoms, but only with a government that works from the service paradigm.

That sounds a bit like social democracy, at least, to me. I could be reading things into it that aren't there.

In general, contemporary social democrats support:

   * A mixed economy consisting of both private enterprise and publicly owned or subsidized programs of education, universal health care, child care and related social services for all citizens.
   * An extensive system of social security (although usually not to the extent advocated by socialists), with the stated goal of counteracting the effects of poverty and insuring the citizens against loss of income following illness, unemployment or retirement.
   * Government bodies that regulate private enterprise in the interests of workers and consumers by ensuring labor rights (i.e. supporting worker access to trade unions), consumer protections, and fair market competition.
   * Environmentalism and environmental protection laws; for example, funding for alternative energy resources and laws designed to combat global warming.
   * A value-added/progressive taxation system to fund government expenditures.
   * A secular and a socially progressive policy.
   * Immigration and multiculturalism.
   * Youth rights and lowering the voting age.
   * Fair trade over free trade.
   * A foreign policy supporting the promotion of democracy, the protection of human rights and where possible, effective multilateralism.
   * Advocacy of social justice, human rights, social rights, civil rights and civil liberties.

Anything left of the Democrats is considered socialism here. Depending on who you ask these days anything left of Republicans is socialism here. The word is used like a boogie man. Socialism is thrown around here in such a vague way that it doesn't really mean anything other than, "we can't have this 'radical' try to provide us with health-care" But the things you list here would be considered part of a socialist platform. Out of curiousity, what do they recommend lowering the voting age to? It's 18 in the US.

Edit: Realizing though, that Ratatosk isn't using the word in the vague sort of fnord way.

[Vene]

Anything left of the Democrats is considered socialism here. Depending on who you ask these days anything left of Republicans is socialism here. The word is used like a boogie man. Socialism is thrown around here in such a vague way that it doesn't really mean anything other than, "we can't have this 'radical' try to provide us with health-care" But the things you list here would be considered part of a socialist platform. Out of curiousity, what do they recommend lowering the voting age to? It's 18 in the US.

Edit: Realizing though, that Ratatosk isn't using the word in the vague sort of fnord way.

Heh, I'm from "here," I know this is way too far left to be viable (hell, it's is a form of socialism). I'm not exactly sure what age is considered good enough for voting rights. I'm actually okay with 18, mostly because it means there's a good chance the voters are high school graduates. I do know that the voting age in the US wasn't always 18, but I don't think I could support a voting age of 21.

And Rat, it does sound like I read too much into it, and that chart is, at the least, a different way of thinking about things. But, I'm not sure if works because there's no interdependence model. Well, maybe friendly strength could be interpreted that way, I'm not sure.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Anything left of the Democrats is considered socialism here. Depending on who you ask these days anything left of Republicans is socialism here. The word is used like a boogie man. Socialism is thrown around here in such a vague way that it doesn't really mean anything other than, "we can't have this 'radical' try to provide us with health-care" But the things you list here would be considered part of a socialist platform. Out of curiousity, what do they recommend lowering the voting age to? It's 18 in the US.

Edit: Realizing though, that Ratatosk isn't using the word in the vague sort of fnord way.

Heh, I'm from "here," I know this is way too far left to be viable (hell, it's is a form of socialism). I'm not exactly sure what age is considered good enough for voting rights. I'm actually okay with 18, mostly because it means there's a good chance the voters are high school graduates. I do know that the voting age in the US wasn't always 18, but I don't think I could support a voting age of 21.

And Rat, it does sound like I read too much into it, and that chart is, at the least, a different way of thinking about things. But, I'm not sure if works because there's no interdependence model. Well, maybe friendly strength could be interpreted that way, I'm not sure.

Healthy interdependence requires that AT LEAST the Alpha of the pack is in the position of Friendly Strength. There can be an unhealthy interdependence between Hostile Strength and Friendly Weakness, or some really fucked up co-dependent issues between Hostile Strength and Hostlie Weakness. In politics, we can see the former (HS/FW) in scenarios like Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy etc where the people 'supported' the government because they felt incapable (for the germans particularly this was due to the 'bad imprinting' they got post WWI). For examples of the latter (HS,HW), we can look at the conservative groups in the US. For the most part Right Wing politicians operate from a position of Hostile Strength (see War on Drugs, War on Terror, Diminished Civil Liberties etc) AND the people that vote them in operate from a position of Hostile Weakness (OMGZ TEH GOVERNMENT IS EVIL, EXCEPT WHEN GOING AFTER THE STONERS, TOWELHEADS AND WETBACKS!!!!)... they fear the government and elect people that implement laws which create fear of the government.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Anything left of the Democrats is considered socialism here. Depending on who you ask these days anything left of Republicans is socialism here. The word is used like a boogie man. Socialism is thrown around here in such a vague way that it doesn't really mean anything other than, "we can't have this 'radical' try to provide us with health-care" But the things you list here would be considered part of a socialist platform. Out of curiousity, what do they recommend lowering the voting age to? It's 18 in the US.

Edit: Realizing though, that Ratatosk isn't using the word in the vague sort of fnord way.

Heh, I'm from "here," I know this is way too far left to be viable (hell, it's is a form of socialism). I'm not exactly sure what age is considered good enough for voting rights. I'm actually okay with 18, mostly because it means there's a good chance the voters are high school graduates. I do know that the voting age in the US wasn't always 18, but I don't think I could support a voting age of 21.

Ah, I must've misread the Denmark thing, I thought you were Danish for a moment. I'm kinda along the same lines as you are as far as voting age. I'm just remembering when I was 16 or so. I would have cheerfully voted but I don't think that my politics were fully formed (certainly not fully informed) at that time.

Don't know if it's not viable, just not viable here yet. People are still very wary of things on that list, though a lot of it just seems very reactionary. And McCain opened up Pandora's Box in a poorly thought attempt intrying to win over a perceived swath of angry Hillary supporters. That's just my opinion though.

[Vene]

Ah, I must've misread the Denmark thing, I thought you were Danish for a moment. I'm kinda along the same lines as you are as far as voting age. I'm just remembering when I was 16 or so. I would have cheerfully voted but I don't think that my politics were fully formed (certainly not fully informed) at that time.

Nah, not Danish, but have looked at the place as a possibility for expatriation. Doesn't hurt that I have a few friends from the country.

Don't know if it's not viable, just not viable here yet. People are still very wary of things on that list, though a lot of it just seems very reactionary. And McCain opened up Pandora's Box in a poorly thought attempt intrying to win over a perceived swath of angry Hillary supporters. That's just my opinion though.

From what I can tell, the platform is viable, mostly because the Scandinavian countries follow that mindset (or something similar) and they have a very high standard of living. I should have clarified to mean that I didn't think it was a viable option in the US.