Principia Discordia

Principia Discordia => Or Kill Me => Topic started by: tyrannosaurus vex on March 29, 2008, 06:01:31 AM

Title: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on March 29, 2008, 06:01:31 AM
again - you probably aren't the target audience, but this is all i can seem to write lately. fucking election years.

From the mouths of "conservative" radio pundits and talks show hosts, and increasingly from supporters of Hillary Clinton, there is a constant stream of dismissals of the movement championing Barack Obama for President as simply a "personality cult" that cannot see beyond the "empty rhetoric" of a smooth-talking politician. He lacks substance, they say, he offers nothing but flowery speeches and an uncommon command of rhetorical devices and suggestive political maneuvers. He is unqualified to actually carry out the job of President; he is too easily swayed by opinion polls; his supporters are not a campaign but a "movement."

These criticisms, while I certainly understand why they exist, belie the way Barack Obama's critics completely miss the point of Obama's candidacy, and worse, vastly underestimate his supporters. Barack Obama, of course, does have sound policy plans and has been more to-the-point and more specific on just about every issue he is faced with than any of his competitors, facts that the pundits ignore because they are inconvenient. But even that isn't what makes them so terribly wrong on this "personality cult" business.

Barack Obama speaks the language of a growing number of people who are tired of PowerPoint presentations and sick of hearing their elected officials pander to the lowest common denominator in theory while worshiping at the feet of the already-too-powerful in practice. Faced with a government bent on self-interest and deafeningly silent on the will of the People; opposed in many regards by the very people they have elected to represent their best interests; jobless and homeless because corrupt corporations are "good for the economy;" dying of curable ailments because no politician is willing to risk donations in order to reform our health care sistem; millions of Americans already know what is wrong with the system: it doesn't work, and it hasn't worked for a long time.

To these problems, what can be submitted as a solution but Change? When people everywhere are desperate — not for more partisan bickering and deadlock, but for progress — what can they be offered but Hope? Must every conversation on public policy and the state of our Union devolve into point-by-point soundbites to be bickered about endlessly? Must the American people forever be insulted with the language of simple minds while those who do all the talking do nothing else?

Barack Obama does a lot of talking, that's true. He does a lot of talking to people instead of at them or about them. He talks a lot about problems nobody wants to admit they have, but who can't afford to ignore them anymore. He is making a lot of promises to a lot of people. He is putting himself forward as the answer to America's problems. But then, all the candidates are doing that.

But as one of Obama's supporters, I must say that I take offense to the suggestion that I have been enchanted somehow by his speeches, which, to be honest, are good but not the most moving speeches I've ever heard. Even as a person who defends Barack Obama to my friends and to people I've never met against the ridiculous accusations he has faced, I can honestly say that I don't feel like owe the man any particular allegiance or loyalty except as a person who shares my views about America and the world, and the one person who is most likely to be put into a position where those views can find a voice in actual policy.

I am an Obama supporter, but more than that, I am part of a groundswell of dissent from the common wisdom that the answer to a Republican is a Democrat. I cannot speak for everyone who supports Barack Obama, but I can say that most of the ones I have met who do express a similar opinion.

We are not fighting for Barack Obama the man as much as we are fighting for the People who have found him standing for them. We are not loyal to Barack Obama, we are giving him the benefit of the doubt that he can deliver on the promises he has made — not because he sold us on those promises but because those promises are the expression of our demands. Our support is based not on his charisma, but on his standing as an outsider in Washington and his record of achieving meaningful and effective compromise and cooperation with people any simple Democrat might write off as insignificant (and thereby achieve nothing at all).

Barack Obama cannot be America's savior, but he alone among the contenders for the White House is willing to give the American people the chance to save America themselves. He is not perfect, but he is tuned in to the voice of the one entity that is as close to perfect as any political body can be — the voice of the People, tempered with the fair judgment of Reason.

We are not a cult of personality, we are a generation of Americans who refuse to settle for mediocre and ineffective government. We are not sheep being led by a deceptive shepherd, we are a growing band of disaffected, disenchanted citizens who are declaring independence from the status quo. We are a movement, and we are marching to recover the ground lost by failures on both sides of the isle. In Barack Obama, we have found a chink in the armor of the power mongers who have betrayed our trust. And we intend to exploit it.

Let the pundits dismiss us out of hand as invalid and inconsequential. Let small minds be concerned with small things like the difference between a "Conservative" and a "Liberal." We are the People, and we do not need the blessing of small minds and small agendas to act in the best interests of our self-government. And if Barack Obama is ultimately defeated in his quest for the Presidency, let them wonder why the Cult of Barack Obama continues to wage war against incompetent and self-destructive government, even without its "savior."
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 29, 2008, 06:03:19 AM
My opinion is, the jury is still out on Obama.

If he votes against the Homegrown Terrorist Act, I will vote for him.

If he votes for it, then fuck him in his ear.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on March 29, 2008, 06:08:23 AM
just to piss you off, roger, he's going to vote "present"
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 29, 2008, 06:09:52 AM
Quote from: vexati0n on March 29, 2008, 06:08:23 AM
just to piss you off, roger, he's going to vote "present"

Well, that's the same as voting for it.

Just saying.

TGRR,
Will vote for Richard fucking Nixon.  See if I don't.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Requia ☣ on March 29, 2008, 06:28:43 AM
I doubt he'll vote against it.  The bll is far too innocent looking on the surface.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Cain on March 29, 2008, 09:33:12 AM
I don't know....he caught the trick on the Iraq War pretty well, and his policy advice team actually don't seem to be entirely insane.  Can't primary legislation have secondary acts ammending its scope or purpose?  I can imagine some of his academic advisors (one of whom was instrumental in writing the Army's latest counterinsurgency manual, or at least the section pertaining  to human rights and warfare) would like the money for the research, but may not be so thrilled with what the committee recommends.  Especially a committee that is likely to be stacked with Orthodox theorists of terrorism, who've already had their 7 years in the sun and should STFU now.

As to the wider point....I do find the subtle difference in rhetoric interesting.  McCain and Clinton seemed focussed on using fear to get their way.  Vote for me, or else the terrorists will attack again.  Vote for me or else a Muslim Black Sepratist will be in the White House.  Vote for me or everything you hold dear will be destroyed.  Obama's team, on the other hand, seem to be saying "this doesn't seem to be working, lets try something else".  Which is often normally a good idea.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Payne on March 29, 2008, 09:55:19 AM
You mean Obama isn't Osama, hiding behind a 'B'?!

:x
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on March 29, 2008, 05:11:55 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 29, 2008, 06:09:52 AM


TGRR,
Will vote for Richard fucking Nixon.  See if I don't.

Totally hoping he wins.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Roo on March 29, 2008, 10:21:57 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 29, 2008, 09:33:12 AM
  Obama's team, on the other hand, seem to be saying "this doesn't seem to be working, lets try something else".  Which is often normally a good idea.

Except when no one seems to know what that "something else" would be. I hear the word Change loud and clear. But I don't really hear what that Change would be. I do agree that he's probably the best hope...but we've been running on Hope for a long time. Hope ain't cuttin' it. And Change, for the sake of change, isn't either.

We do need change. We do need something different. But we need to stop and think about what really needs to change.  We need to listen to each other more than the politicians. We need to rethink politics, as a whole. We may need to rethink government, as a whole.


QuoteLet the pundits dismiss us out of hand as invalid and inconsequential. Let small minds be concerned with small things like the difference between a "Conservative" and a "Liberal." We are the People, and we do not need the blessing of small minds and small agendas to act in the best interests of our self-government. And if Barack Obama is ultimately defeated in his quest for the Presidency, let them wonder why the Cult of Barack Obama continues to wage war against incompetent and self-destructive government, even without its "savior."

This is exactly, word for word, what Ron Paul's supporters say, btw.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 29, 2008, 11:33:36 PM
Quote from: Requiem on March 29, 2008, 06:28:43 AM
I doubt he'll vote against it.  The bll is far too innocent looking on the surface.

He's not stupid, and he's not paid to be naive.

Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 29, 2008, 11:34:58 PM
Quote from: Roo on March 29, 2008, 10:21:57 PM


Except when no one seems to know what that "something else" would be.

Well, yeah, if you forgo listening to his speeches in favor of listening to Sean Hannity's analysis.

Quote from: Roo on March 29, 2008, 10:21:57 PM
This is exactly, word for word, what Ron Paul's supporters say, btw.

Fuck Ron Paul in his ear.  And fuck his supporters, too.

TGRR,
Has no love for the Jackass from Texas.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Roo on March 29, 2008, 11:51:25 PM
Quote
Well, yeah, if you forgo listening to his speeches in favor of listening to Sean Hannity's analysis.

I have no idea what Hannity has to say. Don't care, either.

I will admit, though, that I haven't listened to all that many of Obama's speeches. Guess I might have tuned him out after one too many promises of change...that sounded almost exactly like what Bush sounded like 8 years ago.  :eek:

QuoteFuck Ron Paul in his ear.  And fuck his supporters, too.

TGRR,
Has no love for the Jackass from Texas.

Not too fond of the man, myself. Just have a boyfriend who's bought it all, hook, line and sinker. :x


When it comes to the current crop of candidates, I don't want any of them as my president. But like I said, Obama is probably the lesser of evils.

Roo,
Wants to start her own country.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 30, 2008, 12:03:25 AM
Quote from: Roo on March 29, 2008, 11:51:25 PM



Not too fond of the man, myself. Just have a boyfriend who's bought it all, hook, line and sinker. :x

Ask him why Ron Paul takes hom $400,000,000 in pork per year.

Or why he hates article I, sec 2; article II, sec 8, and amendments XVI and XIV of the US constitution.

TGRR,
Knows Ron Paul is anything but a "constitutionalist".
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Requia ☣ on March 30, 2008, 12:51:25 AM
I thought Ron Paul wanted a flat tax?  That seems in line with ammendment 16.  (Of course, I don't remember the ammendment very well).
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 30, 2008, 04:11:35 AM
Quote from: Requiem on March 30, 2008, 12:51:25 AM
I thought Ron Paul wanted a flat tax?  That seems in line with ammendment 16.  (Of course, I don't remember the ammendment very well).

No, that is another matter entirely.

Now, kiddies, for a shiny new dime, name one modern society that has survived with a flat tax.

Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on March 30, 2008, 04:56:53 AM
rp isn't a moron, he just plays one in his policies.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Roo on March 30, 2008, 05:09:56 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 30, 2008, 12:03:25 AM
Quote from: Roo on March 29, 2008, 11:51:25 PM
Not too fond of the man, myself. Just have a boyfriend who's bought it all, hook, line and sinker. :x

Ask him why Ron Paul takes hom $400,000,000 in pork per year.

Or why he hates article I, sec 2; article II, sec 8, and amendments XVI and XIV of the US constitution.

TGRR,
Knows Ron Paul is anything but a "constitutionalist".

Looking at the numbers rather quickly, it seems that Clinton requested quite a bit (over $340 million), while Obama only requested about $91 million this year. Seems that FY07 was over $300 million. I'm sorry, but I find it hard to believe that he stopped "because he felt it was getting out of hand". Especially when that just happens to coincide with his presidential campaign.
Given the size of Texas, and the comparison to how much other representatives are asking for, I tend to think that Paul is 'just doing his job'. He would be doing his state/district a disservice if he didn't try to bring home the bacon. 

mmm...bacon.

As for the Constitution...(do you mean Article I, section 8? There are only four sections in Article II.) Congressman Paul hates anything that limits freedom, especially taxes. I can't say I really disagree. I remember challenging my father about filing with the IRS on the grounds that paying taxes is supposed to be voluntary. It's not, of course...because right under the part in the IRS code where it says that paying taxes is voluntary, it says that the IRS has the right to force people to pay. Voluntarily.   :mad:

QuoteNow, kiddies, for a shiny new dime, name one modern society that has survived with a flat tax.

How about naming a modern society that has survived with fiat currency? Or really, any modern society that has managed to survive for more than a few hundred years at all?

Roo,
Wants her own damn planet now.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 30, 2008, 05:25:52 AM
Quote from: Roo on March 30, 2008, 05:09:56 AM

Given the size of Texas, and the comparison to how much other representatives are asking for, I tend to think that Paul is 'just doing his job'. He would be doing his state/district a disservice if he didn't try to bring home the bacon. 

Well, that would be fine, if he didn't bitch about pork and taxes all fucking day.


Quote from: Roo on March 30, 2008, 05:09:56 AM
As for the Constitution...(do you mean Article I, section 8? There are only four sections in Article II.) Congressman Paul hates anything that limits freedom, especially taxes.

Taxes do not limit freedom.  Taxes have nothing to do with freedom, in fact.  If you have confused essential human liberties with your bank statement, then I feel kinda sorry for you.

And yes, I meant article I.  Oh, and Ron Paul LOVES a couple of things that limit freedom...for example, he loves telling women what they can and cannot do with their reproductive organs, despite amendment IX.  He also loves the idea of stripping people of their birthright, if their skin is smudgy...he just HATES amendment XIV, sec 1.


Quote from: Roo on March 30, 2008, 05:09:56 AM
I can't say I really disagree. I remember challenging my father about filing with the IRS on the grounds that paying taxes is supposed to be voluntary. It's not, of course...because right under the part in the IRS code where it says that paying taxes is voluntary, it says that the IRS has the right to force people to pay. Voluntarily.   :mad:

Link to ANYTHING official stating that taxes are voluntary?  They are not, nor have they ever been.  They are - per the US constitution - levied. 

Quote from: Roo on March 30, 2008, 05:09:56 AM
How about naming a modern society that has survived with fiat currency?

The USA.

Quote from: Roo on March 30, 2008, 05:09:56 AM
Or really, any modern society that has managed to survive for more than a few hundred years at all?

England.



Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 30, 2008, 05:26:26 AM
Quote from: vexati0n on March 30, 2008, 04:56:53 AM
rp isn't a moron, he just plays one in his policies.

RP isn't a moron.  That's what he has his cult of followers for.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on March 30, 2008, 05:32:29 AM
Every modern society has a fiat currency, so the success rate there is better than a flat tax. Also, if RP hates restrictions on freedom so much, why does he want a federal law banning abortion nationwide? He's anti-war and anti-establishment and that makes him cool with a lot of people who are actually liberals and socialists but are too dumb to know how to follow policy, but it doesn't mean anything he proposes makes any real sense.

Taking our economy back to a 19th Century model sure as fuck doesn't make any sense. The Constitution doesn't technically provide any legality for the system we have now, but that's because economics wasn't very developed in 1787, and couldn't have predicted the need for a fiat currency or a global economy anyway, and the system we had wasn't working. Yes there's corruption and lots of people are getting screwed, but at least the economy provides for a certain continuity of civilization.

If you listen to RP's discourses on economics, you'll find that his views are vastly oversimplified and he makes a lot of assumptions that aren't necessarily true. I'm glad he's Fighting The Man and everything, but I'm also glad he doesn't have a chance in Hell of becoming the President, ever.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on March 30, 2008, 05:53:35 AM
And while I'm at it, libertarians and their "we don't need no stinkin' taxes" bullshit piss me right the fuck off. Who the fuck are these people to claim the right to live in any modern society full of modern conveniences, and expect to get all that for free? Where the fuck do you think the street in front of your house comes from? The Government Services Fairy? How do you expect to pay the people who are, at least once in a while, actually enacting public policy that makes your life better than the life of some poor mud-sucking victim of a corrupt Indonesian puppet regime? You'll drive a car made safer by government regulation down a street patrolled by government-paid police to your job where regulations cover you for pay and safety. For all my talk about taking down the System and bringing power mongering jackasses to justice, I do believe that if you live a good life, then you owe something back to the society that makes that possible.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Roo on March 30, 2008, 06:54:15 AM
QuoteTaxes do not limit freedom.  Taxes have nothing to do with freedom, in fact.  If you have confused essential human liberties with your bank statement, then I feel kinda sorry for you.

And yes, I meant article I.  Oh, and Ron Paul LOVES a couple of things that limit freedom...for example, he loves telling women what they can and cannot do with their reproductive organs, despite amendment IX.  He also loves the idea of stripping people of their birthright, if Howetheir skin is smudgy...he just HATES amendment XIV, sec 1.

I haven't confused essential human liberties with my bank statement, because I don't have a bank statement and freedom isn't essential. I cherish mine (as much as I have), that's for sure...but humans have often lived without liberty, and depending on who you are and where you live in this world, still do.

The world, from my admittedly limited perspective, is becoming a strange mishmash of Asimov's Foundation series, 1984, a little Brave New World, and Anthem for good measure. So that might explain a few things.


As for our dear RP, and Amendment XIV...IIRC, he's got beef with it, because of the way it was passed...something about being brought up for vote on the last day before the Christmas break, after most people had gone home for the holiday...something shady about it. I might be confusing that with something else though, as I can't find anything on it right now.

 
Quote
Link to ANYTHING official stating that taxes are voluntary?  They are not, nor have they ever been.  They are - per the US constitution - levied. 

But they should be voluntary, damnit. Cuz then I wouldn't have to pay them. :roll: :D

I was thinking of this: http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/payingtaxesisonlyvoluntary.htm (http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/payingtaxesisonlyvoluntary.htm) But I don't think that counts as official.


Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Roo on March 30, 2008, 07:09:14 AM
Quote from: vexati0n on March 30, 2008, 05:53:35 AM
And while I'm at it, libertarians and their "we don't need no stinkin' taxes" bullshit piss me right the fuck off. Who the fuck are these people to claim the right to live in any modern society full of modern conveniences, and expect to get all that for free? Where the fuck do you think the street in front of your house comes from? The Government Services Fairy? How do you expect to pay the people who are, at least once in a while, actually enacting public policy that makes your life better than the life of some poor mud-sucking victim of a corrupt Indonesian puppet regime? You'll drive a car made safer by government regulation down a street patrolled by government-paid police to your job where regulations cover you for pay and safety. For all my talk about taking down the System and bringing power mongering jackasses to justice, I do believe that if you live a good life, then you owe something back to the society that makes that possible.

If I've got the libertarian shtick right...they have this idea that if people aren't paying taxes, they'll somehow band together and plunk down the cash for all the stuff the government takes care of right now. It'd be nice.

TBH, I'm not so sure that that car is really safer because of gov't regulation, those gov't paid cops are starting to act like they're hot shit and they run the place, and the job...well, shit. I'm currently unemployed, so I can't speak to that. But when I was working, it was in retail, and 10 bucks an hour (while better than the Indonesian guy's pay) does not go very far in today's economy.

I'd agree that we do owe something back to society...but since when does the gov't = society? I feel that I ought to get off my ass and do something...but for my fellow citizens, not some faceless Government. 

But seriously, vex...what better way would there be to bring down the System, than to stop funding it?
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on March 30, 2008, 07:20:18 AM
Government isn't society but it's our mechanism for distributing services to our society. It's overgrown and leaning a little too far past the Fascist mark right now, but obliterating it and pretending we'll be better off without it is hardly the answer. Government is a necessary evil. The problem is that too many people have forgotten that.

At the same time, absolute freedom in the market tends to put a lot of people in the position of eating shit sandwiches for every meal, and taking all the taxes away tends to disintegrate a society to the point that even if people were willing to band together, there's nothing left to band together for.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Nast on March 30, 2008, 07:50:49 AM
Government is only a necessary evil until we figure out how to make it

a) less necessary

b) less evil

...which is in fact, the big problem so far.
I'm not sure if people can't live without a government, it's just that people will, like you said, really like things that come with a big government.
In the Old Testament, the Israelites lived without a king until they saw how other lands had a glorious ruler. God even told them that a king would just steal their horses and tax 'em, but people wanted one anyway. *shrug*
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on March 30, 2008, 07:54:59 AM
the only way to have a perfect society with no government is to drag our enemies into the streets and kill them.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Cainad (dec.) on March 30, 2008, 08:45:25 AM
But that would involve killing ev-

...

Oh, I get it! Good idea!
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Roo on March 30, 2008, 08:53:53 AM
Quote from: vexati0n on March 30, 2008, 07:20:18 AM
Government isn't society but it's our mechanism for distributing services to our society. It's overgrown and leaning a little too far past the Fascist mark right now, but obliterating it and pretending we'll be better off without it is hardly the answer. Government is a necessary evil. The problem is that too many people have forgotten that.

At the same time, absolute freedom in the market tends to put a lot of people in the position of eating shit sandwiches for every meal, and taking all the taxes away tends to disintegrate a society to the point that even if people were willing to band together, there's nothing left to band together for.

Hm. Well, the best solution for things that are overgrown is often to cut them back ruthlessly. They might look ugly for a while, but you end up with a healthier result. And when a plant or a government is leaning too far one way, it'll often just topple over on its own. You can try propping it up, but that only works as long as the prop is there. And I might be way off base here, but I think our government, and by extension, our monetary system, is already propped up. I'm starting to get the feeling that Fascism is all that's holding it up, and we'd better come up with something else real quick, if we'd like to keep our precious freedom.

People eating shit sandwiches...happens now. Frequently. Absolute freedom in the market...I could be wrong, but I don't think it's ever been tried. Seems like that would require people having absolute freedom in the first place, and that's never happened, not even in the Land of the Free. (Absolute freedom, in my mind, being a state of having no rules or regulations.)

As for disintegrating society...and people banding together...they always will, as a matter of survival. People do not do well on their own, in general. We don't know that taking away taxes would disintegrate society either. It would definitely change it, enormously. It would almost certainly destroy our current form of government. But people will survive, and where there are people, there is society.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Cain on March 30, 2008, 01:55:03 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 30, 2008, 04:11:35 AM
Quote from: Requiem on March 30, 2008, 12:51:25 AM
I thought Ron Paul wanted a flat tax?  That seems in line with ammendment 16.  (Of course, I don't remember the ammendment very well).

No, that is another matter entirely.

Now, kiddies, for a shiny new dime, name one modern society that has survived with a flat tax.



Somalia.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Cain on March 30, 2008, 02:03:08 PM
Quote from: Roo on March 29, 2008, 10:21:57 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 29, 2008, 09:33:12 AM
  Obama's team, on the other hand, seem to be saying "this doesn't seem to be working, lets try something else".  Which is often normally a good idea.

Except when no one seems to know what that "something else" would be. I hear the word Change loud and clear. But I don't really hear what that Change would be. I do agree that he's probably the best hope...but we've been running on Hope for a long time. Hope ain't cuttin' it. And Change, for the sake of change, isn't either.

We do need change. We do need something different. But we need to stop and think about what really needs to change.  We need to listen to each other more than the politicians. We need to rethink politics, as a whole. We may need to rethink government, as a whole.

I dont live in America, I just like to comment upon its politics, because they're more exciting than BBC Parliament.

A change would be good because Bush and the NeoCon gravy train has become predictable.  I'd love to see Obama invade Kenya, for example.  None of the other candidates would do that.  The others are all the boring dull "lets have a war with the Middle East zomg the Mooslems will rape yuor daughter fear fear fear" candidates.  That was funny until about 2005.  Besides, I'm a gambler.  Unsure ruin > definite ruin any day of the week.  And is often more amusing.

Speaking of which, I was watching McCain on C-Span today.  It was very interesting, to watch the change between when he was asked about China, Tibet and Taiwan (sensible, cautious, pragmatic) and then was asked about the Islamic world, where suddenly it became a war of values like the Cold War.  I think McCain has his priorities screwed up.  If he wants to talk about wars like the Cold War, he should really be concentrating on North Asia.  China, Russia and Japan are working their way up to blowing the shit out of each other, and India probably wants a piece of the action as well.  Nothing's set in stone though, and if the US managed to either turn Russia out of China's orbit or bring India fully on side, any war there could be deterred before it starts.

But nooooooooo, lets fuck around in the strategically worthless Middle East instead!
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 30, 2008, 04:36:13 PM
Quote from: Roo on March 30, 2008, 06:54:15 AM
and freedom isn't essential.

Ugh.

Quote from: Roo on March 30, 2008, 06:54:15 AM

As for our dear RP, and Amendment XIV...IIRC, he's got beef with it, because of the way it was passed...something about being brought up for vote on the last day before the Christmas break, after most people had gone home for the holiday...something shady about it. I might be confusing that with something else though, as I can't find anything on it right now.

Amendment XIV?  It sure as hell wasn't.  Perhaps you mean amendment XVI.  And besides, congressmen aren't paid to leave a day early.
 
Quote from: Roo on March 30, 2008, 06:54:15 AM

But they should be voluntary, damnit. Cuz then I wouldn't have to pay them. :roll: :D



Um, okay, but then you don't get to use the roads, or go to the hospital, or call the police, etc.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 30, 2008, 04:37:30 PM
Quote from: Roo on March 30, 2008, 07:09:14 AM


TBH, I'm not so sure that that car is really safer because of gov't regulation, 

Then you've never seen a wreck involving 1960s cars.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 30, 2008, 04:38:24 PM
Quote from: Roo on March 30, 2008, 08:53:53 AM
Quote from: vexati0n on March 30, 2008, 07:20:18 AM
Government isn't society but it's our mechanism for distributing services to our society. It's overgrown and leaning a little too far past the Fascist mark right now, but obliterating it and pretending we'll be better off without it is hardly the answer. Government is a necessary evil. The problem is that too many people have forgotten that.

At the same time, absolute freedom in the market tends to put a lot of people in the position of eating shit sandwiches for every meal, and taking all the taxes away tends to disintegrate a society to the point that even if people were willing to band together, there's nothing left to band together for.

Hm. Well, the best solution for things that are overgrown is often to cut them back ruthlessly. They might look ugly for a while, but you end up with a healthier result. And when a plant or a government is leaning too far one way, it'll often just topple over on its own. You can try propping it up, but that only works as long as the prop is there. And I might be way off base here, but I think our government, and by extension, our monetary system, is already propped up. I'm starting to get the feeling that Fascism is all that's holding it up, and we'd better come up with something else real quick, if we'd like to keep our precious freedom.

People eating shit sandwiches...happens now. Frequently. Absolute freedom in the market...I could be wrong, but I don't think it's ever been tried. Seems like that would require people having absolute freedom in the first place, and that's never happened, not even in the Land of the Free. (Absolute freedom, in my mind, being a state of having no rules or regulations.)

As for disintegrating society...and people banding together...they always will, as a matter of survival. People do not do well on their own, in general. We don't know that taking away taxes would disintegrate society either. It would definitely change it, enormously. It would almost certainly destroy our current form of government. But people will survive, and where there are people, there is society.

You seem to have contempt for personal liberty.  Why is that?
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Roo on March 30, 2008, 11:39:59 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 30, 2008, 04:38:24 PM
Quote from: Roo on March 30, 2008, 08:53:53 AM
Quote from: vexati0n on March 30, 2008, 07:20:18 AM
Government isn't society but it's our mechanism for distributing services to our society. It's overgrown and leaning a little too far past the Fascist mark right now, but obliterating it and pretending we'll be better off without it is hardly the answer. Government is a necessary evil. The problem is that too many people have forgotten that.

At the same time, absolute freedom in the market tends to put a lot of people in the position of eating shit sandwiches for every meal, and taking all the taxes away tends to disintegrate a society to the point that even if people were willing to band together, there's nothing left to band together for.

Hm. Well, the best solution for things that are overgrown is often to cut them back ruthlessly. They might look ugly for a while, but you end up with a healthier result. And when a plant or a government is leaning too far one way, it'll often just topple over on its own. You can try propping it up, but that only works as long as the prop is there. And I might be way off base here, but I think our government, and by extension, our monetary system, is already propped up. I'm starting to get the feeling that Fascism is all that's holding it up, and we'd better come up with something else real quick, if we'd like to keep our precious freedom.

People eating shit sandwiches...happens now. Frequently. Absolute freedom in the market...I could be wrong, but I don't think it's ever been tried. Seems like that would require people having absolute freedom in the first place, and that's never happened, not even in the Land of the Free. (Absolute freedom, in my mind, being a state of having no rules or regulations.)

As for disintegrating society...and people banding together...they always will, as a matter of survival. People do not do well on their own, in general. We don't know that taking away taxes would disintegrate society either. It would definitely change it, enormously. It would almost certainly destroy our current form of government. But people will survive, and where there are people, there is society.

You seem to have contempt for personal liberty.  Why is that?

Where do you get this sense of contempt from what I've written? Is it because I wrote "our precious freedom"?
I do mean that in the sense that freedom is precious. It is important, it's something worth caring about, if not fighting for. But at the same time, those who speak loudest about freedom, are often the same ones who would take others' freedom away in a heartbeat. From a more personal perspective...living in my father's house (a Marine who served in the Vietnam war), I heard one thing and experienced another. He often spoke of fighting for freedom, while tyrannizing the entire family. It's only in the last few years, since I moved out of that house, that I have begun to feel free.

That freedom often scares me. The plethora of choices available through freedom can be overwhelming. The individual responsibility of having personal liberty...means that I can no longer play the victim. For all the terror and horror of living in an abusive home, I felt safer there than I do now. Personal liberty means that there is no one else to save me. Or speak for me...or tell me what to think.

I catch myself, over and over, wanting to go back to being told what to think, what to do, and who to be. It's easier, in a twisted sort of way. :cry:   

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 30, 2008, 04:37:30 PM
Quote from: Roo on March 30, 2008, 07:09:14 AM


TBH, I'm not so sure that that car is really safer because of gov't regulation, 

Then you've never seen a wreck involving 1960s cars.
Nope. Wasn't alive back then, and the only 60's cars I see nowadays are show cars.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Roo on March 31, 2008, 12:05:52 AM
QuoteAnd besides, congressmen aren't paid to leave a day early.
Doesn't mean they won't.  :|
 
Quote from: Roo on March 30, 2008, 06:54:15 AM
But they should be voluntary, damnit. Cuz then I wouldn't have to pay them. :roll: :D
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Um, okay, but then you don't get to use the roads, or go to the hospital, or call the police, etc.
Because apparently the price of freedom is taxes.  :wink:

I'll put it this way...I can see the need for public income to pay for public projects and services. But it's getting a bit out of hand, when I have to hand over part of my paycheck to the gov't, before I even see it. And then I have to pay taxes on the things I buy with that money. If I happen to invest part of that money, I have to pay taxes on that too. And so on.
Yet where is all that money going? Am I really benefiting from it, if I can't afford to buy and maintain a car to use on those roads...and I can't get treated at the hospital, because I don't have insurance...(don't know about calling the police, as I've never tried, but they're starting to scare me more than the criminals)...but it seems like the more cops we have, the more people become criminals.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on March 31, 2008, 12:12:13 AM
the price of freedom is taxes, more than it is "self-sacrifice in the name of liberty."

secondly, don't blame taxes for your inability to get ahead in life (by the way, a flat tax would only make that problem worse, anyway). your inability to afford expensive shit is caused either by your unwillingness to further your own education and workforce marketability now at the expense of instant gratification, or your employer's belief that he deserves to be paid more than you do even though you do more actual work than he does. in either case, government programs and regulations can help -- either by funding continuing education or forcing the dickbags behind the desks to pay either higher taxes or higher wages.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Roo on March 31, 2008, 03:12:56 AM
Quote from: vexati0n on March 31, 2008, 12:12:13 AM
the price of freedom is taxes, more than it is "self-sacrifice in the name of liberty."

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"...is the quote. And that's what I'm really trying to get at. That taxpayers would be wise to pay attention to where their tax dollars are going. That citizens must keep their government in check, and make sure that those gov't programs and regulations really are helping.

Maybe I'm just talking to myself...I know I'm still ignoring a lot of what's going on in the government. After all, I still haven't made up my mind about who to vote for. I don't want any of 'em, and I believe that our method of electing the lesser of two evils has led to most of the evils in power now. I want something completely different.

Quotesecondly, don't blame taxes for your inability to get ahead in life (by the way, a flat tax would only make that problem worse, anyway). your inability to afford expensive shit is caused either by your unwillingness to further your own education and workforce marketability now at the expense of instant gratification, or your employer's belief that he deserves to be paid more than you do even though you do more actual work than he does. in either case, government programs and regulations can help -- either by funding continuing education or forcing the dickbags behind the desks to pay either higher taxes or higher wages.

Wait a minute. Don't blame taxes for your inability to get ahead in life...but pay your taxes so that the government can help you get ahead. I'm confused. 

I'm blaming taxes for the government that we have right now. I'm saying that we fund it with every purchase we make, loan, investment and cent we earn. Not for my inability to get ahead in life. That has a lot more to do with unwillingness to perform, than the taxes I'm (not) paying. And no government program is going to help that, without seriously infringing on personal liberty.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 31, 2008, 04:04:34 AM
Quote from: Roo on March 30, 2008, 11:39:59 PM
Where do you get this sense of contempt from what I've written? Is it because I wrote "our precious freedom"?
I do mean that in the sense that freedom is precious. It is important, it's something worth caring about, if not fighting for. But at the same time, those who speak loudest about freedom, are often the same ones who would take others' freedom away in a heartbeat.

Not true.  I screech the loudest, and I have no desire to take anyone's freedom away.

Quote from: Roo on March 30, 2008, 11:39:59 PM
From a more personal perspective...living in my father's house (a Marine who served in the Vietnam war), I heard one thing and experienced another. He often spoke of fighting for freedom, while tyrannizing the entire family. It's only in the last few years, since I moved out of that house, that I have begun to feel free.

Not the same issue.  Parental control does not equal lack of habeas corpus, etc.

Quote from: Roo on March 30, 2008, 11:39:59 PM
That freedom often scares me. The plethora of choices available through freedom can be overwhelming. The individual responsibility of having personal liberty...means that I can no longer play the victim. For all the terror and horror of living in an abusive home, I felt safer there than I do now. Personal liberty means that there is no one else to save me. Or speak for me...or tell me what to think.

1.  Freedom isn't supposed to be safe.

2.  Freedom isn't possible without the rule of law.


Quote from: Roo on March 30, 2008, 11:39:59 PM
Nope. Wasn't alive back then, and the only 60's cars I see nowadays are show cars.

In the 60s & 70s, you'd have a head on collision, and there'd hardly be a mark on the cars...but everyone inside would be dead.

Nowdays, the cars collapse and disperse all the impact.  The car is totalled, and everyone is standing around exchanging insurance info.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 31, 2008, 04:11:35 AM
Quote from: Roo on March 31, 2008, 12:05:52 AM

Because apparently the price of freedom is taxes.  :wink:

Yep.  No taxes means no governing authority.  No governing authority means no rule of law.  No rule of law means no freedom.  It's back to the jungle, with the strong tyrannizing the weak.

Quote from: Roo on March 30, 2008, 11:39:59 PM
I'll put it this way...I can see the need for public income to pay for public projects and services. But it's getting a bit out of hand, when I have to hand over part of my paycheck to the gov't, before I even see it. And then I have to pay taxes on the things I buy with that money. If I happen to invest part of that money, I have to pay taxes on that too. And so on.

Yep.  A modern nation of 300,000,000+ people costs money to run.  I am not saying they don't waste a bunch, but that's the nature of bureaucracy.  And bureaucracy is your best defense against tyranny (it's really hard to get them to change their ways to suit an autocrat).


Quote from: Roo on March 30, 2008, 11:39:59 PM
Yet where is all that money going? Am I really benefiting from it, if I can't afford to buy and maintain a car to use on those roads...and I can't get treated at the hospital, because I don't have insurance...(don't know about calling the police, as I've never tried, but they're starting to scare me more than the criminals)...but it seems like the more cops we have, the more people become criminals.

Imposition of order imposes disorder.  We all know this.

But:

1.  Your toilet works.
2.  Your garbage is collected.  If you've ever seen a New York garbage strike, you'll instantly understand how vital this is.
3.  The roads are there.  Without roads, you starve (do you have any idea how much work it takes to get food into cities?).
4.  Ambulance.
5.  Hospital emergency rooms HAVE to treat you, regardless of your ability to pay.
6.  Fire department.
7.  Police (Don't like 'em?  Move to Somalia.  They don't have any.  Let us know how that works out).
8.  Military.  Currently misused, but necessary.
9.  Power available on demand.
10.  Fresh water on demand.

Etc.  I could go on, if you'd like.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 31, 2008, 04:13:07 AM
Quote from: vexati0n on March 31, 2008, 12:12:13 AM
the price of freedom is taxes, more than it is "self-sacrifice in the name of liberty."

secondly, don't blame taxes for your inability to get ahead in life (by the way, a flat tax would only make that problem worse, anyway).

Fuck yes it would.  A flat tax is nothing more than a method of ensuring a permanent aristocracy and a permanent serf class.

And don't even get me started on that "fair tax" bullshit.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on March 31, 2008, 04:27:14 AM
discordianism can't be a real religion, because unlike any other religion, when you join a bunch of them and assume they all think like you do, you're always wrong.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: B_M_W on March 31, 2008, 04:31:27 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 31, 2008, 04:04:34 AM


Quote from: Roo on March 30, 2008, 11:39:59 PM
Nope. Wasn't alive back then, and the only 60's cars I see nowadays are show cars.

In the 60s & 70s, you'd have a head on collision, and there'd hardly be a mark on the cars...but everyone inside would be dead.

Nowdays, the cars collapse and disperse all the impact.  The car is totalled, and everyone is standing around exchanging insurance info.

This is the correct physicscycle.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 31, 2008, 04:36:24 AM
Quote from: B_M_W on March 31, 2008, 04:31:27 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 31, 2008, 04:04:34 AM


Quote from: Roo on March 30, 2008, 11:39:59 PM
Nope. Wasn't alive back then, and the only 60's cars I see nowadays are show cars.

In the 60s & 70s, you'd have a head on collision, and there'd hardly be a mark on the cars...but everyone inside would be dead.

Nowdays, the cars collapse and disperse all the impact.  The car is totalled, and everyone is standing around exchanging insurance info.

This is the correct physicscycle.

That's why I laugh when retards buy huge, high center of gravity SUVs, because they're "safer".
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: LMNO on March 31, 2008, 03:23:43 PM
All this reminds me of people in the suburbs bitching about how they don't want to pay property taxes to fund the schools because they don't have any children who go to those schools.

Then they act shocked when a fifth grader can't find the US on a world map.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: AFK on March 31, 2008, 06:08:39 PM
Show me someone who is worried about their taxes limiting their freedom and I'll show you someone who is way overextended on credit cards and someone who probably took out one of those fancy-pants mortgages that is causing the economy to melt before our very eyes.

It's called budgeting people.  If the taxes are putting that much of a crimp on your style, perhaps your style is more than you can afford. 
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Requia ☣ on March 31, 2008, 06:56:14 PM
Quote from: LMNO on March 31, 2008, 03:23:43 PM
All this reminds me of people in the suburbs bitching about how they don't want to pay property taxes to fund the schools because they don't have any children who go to those schools.

Then they act shocked when a fifth grader can't find the US on a world map.

There are people in the suburbs who don't have kids where you live?

I really need to get out of Utah.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Cainad (dec.) on March 31, 2008, 07:00:08 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 31, 2008, 06:08:39 PM
Show me someone who is worried about their taxes limiting their freedom and I'll show you someone who is way overextended on credit cards and someone who probably took out one of those fancy-pants mortgages that is causing the economy to melt before our very eyes.

It's called budgeting people.  If the taxes are putting that much of a crimp on your style, perhaps your style is more than you can afford. 

Fuck you! This is America; if I can use my credit card to convince me that I can afford an SUV, a $500,000 suburban house, weekly massage treatments, plastic surgery, and a new iPod every year, then I have a right to it and it's the job of the government to make sure bad shit doesn't happen to me because of it!
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: LMNO on March 31, 2008, 07:00:37 PM
Quote from: Requiem on March 31, 2008, 06:56:14 PM
Quote from: LMNO on March 31, 2008, 03:23:43 PM
All this reminds me of people in the suburbs bitching about how they don't want to pay property taxes to fund the schools because they don't have any children who go to those schools.

Then they act shocked when a fifth grader can't find the US on a world map.

There are people in the suburbs who don't have kids where you live?

I really need to get out of Utah.

Yes, and there are people in the suburbs whose kids have already gone through the system, and aren't in school any more.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on March 31, 2008, 07:06:03 PM
Quote from: Cainad on March 31, 2008, 07:00:08 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 31, 2008, 06:08:39 PM
Show me someone who is worried about their taxes limiting their freedom and I'll show you someone who is way overextended on credit cards and someone who probably took out one of those fancy-pants mortgages that is causing the economy to melt before our very eyes.

It's called budgeting people.  If the taxes are putting that much of a crimp on your style, perhaps your style is more than you can afford. 

Fuck you! This is America; if I can use my credit card to convince me that I can afford an SUV, a $500,000 suburban house, weekly massage treatments, plastic surgery, and a new iPod every year, then I have a right to it and it's the job of the government to make sure bad shit doesn't happen to me because of it!

This, you understand, is dramatization and exaggeration. In many cases, predatory lending practices bordering on fraud are what got people into these shitty mortgages in the first place. Most people don't have a clue about the real estate market or what is entailed in buying a house. There are education programs out there, but most people naturally assume that the most trustworthy authority on the matter is their bank -- which it should be. So people trust the banks, the banks screw the people, and now everybody's fucked.

This is of course all because Clinton deregulated the financial sector in the 1990's, plus the Bush Administration's boneheaded handling of the first half of this decade (not that it's gotten any better in the last 3 years).

Unfortunately, even the shady lenders have to be bailed out now, otherwise the whole system will crash and we'll all be lucky to have so much as a tin of sardines to roast over the burning remains of what was supposed to be our American Dream.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Requia ☣ on March 31, 2008, 07:26:43 PM
While the sub prime morgatges were certainly predatory, about 90% of the sub prime applications reviewed after the crunch started turned out have fraudulent information on them.  There's no real victim here, *everybody*, the realtors, the buyers, the appraisers, the loan officers, the investment bankers, they were all trying to screw the other guy.

Everyone, as it turned out, was very successful.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: LMNO on March 31, 2008, 07:27:29 PM
Quote from: Requiem on March 31, 2008, 07:26:43 PM
While the sub prime morgatges were certainly predatory, about 90% of the sub prime applications reviewed after the crunch started turned out have fraudulent information on them. 

[citation needed]
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Requia ☣ on March 31, 2008, 07:36:45 PM
Quote from: LMNO on March 31, 2008, 07:27:29 PM
Quote from: Requiem on March 31, 2008, 07:26:43 PM
While the sub prime morgatges were certainly predatory, about 90% of the sub prime applications reviewed after the crunch started turned out have fraudulent information on them. 

[citation needed]

Citation is NPR
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: LMNO on March 31, 2008, 07:38:27 PM
Weird.  I keep clicking on that, but I don't see it.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: AFK on March 31, 2008, 07:45:22 PM
NPR= None, Pulled from Rectum
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Cramulus on March 31, 2008, 07:51:07 PM
http://www.fbi.gov/publications/fraud/mortgage_fraud06.htm

article doesn't give any indication of frequency, but does show that the FBI considers it SRS BSNS, and that it's all over the place.



from http://www.fbi.gov/publications/fraud/mortgage_fraud06.htm :
QuoteThe trend continued in 2007. The FBI opened 1,210 mortgage fraud cases in fiscal year 2007, nearly triple the number of new cases in 2003. Convictions more than doubled from 123 in the 2006 fiscal year to 260 in 2007. "We expect that number to increase again in 2008," says FBI financial crimes section chief Sharon Ormsby.

yeah doesn't look like 90%, but still quite high.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: LMNO on March 31, 2008, 08:01:00 PM
Ahem.

From http://www.fbi.gov/publications/fraud/mortgage_fraud06.htm

QuoteMortgage Fraud is defined as the intentional misstatement, misrepresentation, or omission by an applicant or other interested parties, relied on by a lender or underwriter to provide funding for, to purchase, or to insure a mortgage loan.

QuoteRecent statistics suggest that escalating foreclosures provide criminals with the opportunity to exploit and defraud vulnerable homeowners seeking financial guidance.
Perpetrators are exploiting the home equity line of credit (HELOC) application process to conduct mortgage fraud, check fraud, and potentially money laundering-related activity.


Please note that "mortgage fraud" does not automatically mean the homeowner.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Requia ☣ on March 31, 2008, 08:28:09 PM
The kind of fraud discussed in that report is different then what NPR was talking about (that report is also well before the loan application issue was discovered).

The fraud part was that people were lying about past history, stability of employment, paycheck size and so forth in order to look more suitable to the loan.  Loan officers didn't catch the fraud, because they in turn didn't care, and sold the loan to someone else.  That someone else then looked at the loan, decided that the loanee could afford to pay more, and jacked up the interest rate.  This gets coupled with appraisers giving arbitrarily high prices in order to keep up with out of control property speculation, and well, stuff goes into history books.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: LMNO on March 31, 2008, 08:42:17 PM
LINK, MOTHERFUCKER.  DO YOU HAVE ONE?
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Cain on March 31, 2008, 08:56:04 PM
Bankers have waaaaaaaaay too much previous form for giving out loans like candy to people who can't pay back, because they are run by the sort of people who took Business and Management Studies and never had to look beyond daddy's credit card if they wanted to get something.

Higher profits?  Give lots of loans to people who would be refused by any sensible financial institution and then sell them onto someone else.  Genius!  Never mind when they all default at once, because thats not likely to happen right?  No.  I mean, sure, it happened in South America in the 80s, and in South East Asia and Russia and all sorts of other places...but never here.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 31, 2008, 09:23:53 PM
The people who desire no government, I think, fail to understand how many human beings behave without someone controlling them.
The people who think that the government is a Good Thing and should have even more responsibility,  I think, fail to understand how many governments behave without severe restrictions upon their power.

I think its possible for a government to benignly assist its citizens, without becoming a unnecessary and detrimental system of restrictions. However, that government, in my opinion has little in common with the federal government here in the US. Without a major overhaul, it appears to me that this government will continue to grow and every responsibility we pass to it, will return as yet another chain to tie 'we the people' down.  In an ideal Libertarian world, only a very small government would be necessary, because individuals would accept personal responsibility for much of their own lives. Sadly, such an ideal seems insanse in this day and age. In an ideal Social/Liberal world, a very large government could provide a lot of valuable services, without imposing unnecessary restrictions on citizens. Sadly, such an ideal (for the US at least) seems equally insane based on the past 200 years.

Either direction appears to me, to confuse the map and model with Reality.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: AFK on March 31, 2008, 09:26:08 PM
Tragedy of the Commons
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Roo on April 01, 2008, 12:48:13 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 31, 2008, 04:04:34 AM
Quote from: Roo on March 30, 2008, 11:39:59 PM
Where do you get this sense of contempt from what I've written? Is it because I wrote "our precious freedom"?
I do mean that in the sense that freedom is precious. It is important, it's something worth caring about, if not fighting for. But at the same time, those who speak loudest about freedom, are often the same ones who would take others' freedom away in a heartbeat.

Not true.  I screech the loudest, and I have no desire to take anyone's freedom away.
None whatsoever? IIRC, you've just left a job as a cop (so you said, at least). Doesn't that mean, by definition, that you did take some people's freedom away? Are you saying that you've never arrested anyone, or wanted to?

Quote from: Roo on March 30, 2008, 11:39:59 PM
From a more personal perspective...living in my father's house (a Marine who served in the Vietnam war), I heard one thing and experienced another. He often spoke of fighting for freedom, while tyrannizing the entire family. It's only in the last few years, since I moved out of that house, that I have begun to feel free.
Quote
Not the same issue.  Parental control does not equal lack of habeas corpus, etc.
I agree that there's a difference between the freedom from control of the state, and that of parental control. But you were asking why I seemed to have a contempt of freedom, and I was explaining where it comes from. Namely, from a vast disconnect between the ideal and my experiential reality. People often ridicule that which they most fear.

Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Messier Undertree on April 01, 2008, 01:03:49 AM
Quote from: Roo on April 01, 2008, 12:48:13 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 31, 2008, 04:04:34 AM
Not true.  I screech the loudest, and I have no desire to take anyone's freedom away.
None whatsoever? IIRC, you've just left a job as a cop (so you said, at least). Doesn't that mean, by definition, that you did take some people's freedom away? Are you saying that you've never arrested anyone, or wanted to?

I think I just heard a distant "ung".
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Requia ☣ on April 01, 2008, 01:06:49 AM
Well gee, I'd love to link to it, but it didn't happen on the goddamn internet.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2008, 03:37:45 AM
Quote from: Roo on April 01, 2008, 12:48:13 AM

None whatsoever? IIRC, you've just left a job as a cop (so you said, at least).

What makes you doubt it?  I'm just curious.

Quote from: Roo on April 01, 2008, 12:48:13 AM
Doesn't that mean, by definition, that you did take some people's freedom away? Are you saying that you've never arrested anyone, or wanted to?

There is no freedom without the rule of law.  People take their own freedoms away, by attempting to deny the freedom of others.  That's what gets them arrested (note that I wasn't very big on busting potheads, etc).

Quote from: Roo on March 30, 2008, 11:39:59 PM
I agree that there's a difference between the freedom from control of the state, and that of parental control. But you were asking why I seemed to have a contempt of freedom, and I was explaining where it comes from. Namely, from a vast disconnect between the ideal and my experiential reality. People often ridicule that which they most fear.

You're free if you think you're free.  Like the silly old bastard said, "There is no governor ANYWHERE."
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2008, 03:38:52 AM
Quote from: davedim on April 01, 2008, 01:03:49 AM
Quote from: Roo on April 01, 2008, 12:48:13 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 31, 2008, 04:04:34 AM
Not true.  I screech the loudest, and I have no desire to take anyone's freedom away.
None whatsoever? IIRC, you've just left a job as a cop (so you said, at least). Doesn't that mean, by definition, that you did take some people's freedom away? Are you saying that you've never arrested anyone, or wanted to?

I think I just heard a distant "ung".

As "Bob" is my witless, I'm not sure if I'm offended or not.    :lulz: 
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2008, 03:44:49 AM
Quote from: LMNO on March 31, 2008, 03:23:43 PM
All this reminds me of people in the suburbs bitching about how they don't want to pay property taxes to fund the schools because they don't have any children who go to those schools.

Then they act shocked when a fifth grader can't find the US on a world map.

Yes, and they deserve everything that's about to happen to them.

I have to pity.  "Sympathy" is somewhere in the dictionary, I am told, between "shit" and "syphilis".

Fuck 'em.  If they can''t understand that the bills have to be paid, then they are too fucking stupid to exist in a modern society.  Ship the silly buggers to the Aelutians (sp?), where they can eat each other.  Given that there is a limitless supply of dumbfucks, we will have a darwinistic cauldron that will produce a pool of cannibal super-soldiers that we can use to pointlessly fuck with random countries.

Hell, drop them in Jerusalem.  Problem solved.  Within a week, you'd see Jews and Muslims standing back to back, armed with machetes and looking for more horrible cannibals.

Or kill me.

TGRR,
Gotcher back, Habib!
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Roo on April 02, 2008, 05:08:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2008, 03:37:45 AM
Quote from: Roo on April 01, 2008, 12:48:13 AM

None whatsoever? IIRC, you've just left a job as a cop (so you said, at least).

What makes you doubt it?  I'm just curious.

Because not all assholes are cops, and because here on the interwebs, you can pretend to be anyone you damn well please.

I do tend to believe that you were telling the truth, tho. Just keeping my ass covered, in case you weren't.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 01, 2008, 03:37:45 AM
Quote from: Roo on April 01, 2008, 12:48:13 AM
Doesn't that mean, by definition, that you did take some people's freedom away? Are you saying that you've never arrested anyone, or wanted to?

There is no freedom without the rule of law.  People take their own freedoms away, by attempting to deny the freedom of others.  That's what gets them arrested (note that I wasn't very big on busting potheads, etc).

Would you mind writing one of your next essay/rants on this subject? (unless you already have, in which case, just point me to it)

I've always figured it as the opposite...that I'm free, until I run into the wall of law. That the only time my freedom will be limited, is when I do something (and get caught) that is against the rule of law.

must think about this more...
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Cain on April 02, 2008, 05:17:16 PM
I think the most basic way of summing up the freedom and law thing is looking at somewhere like Somalia.

In Somalia of course, they have no real law except for the words of the warlords.  Which means instead of a rule of law, you have a rule of the strong.  Meaning if you're not on the top of the pile, you have no freedom at all.  Without the law, freedom because a zero-sum game where it can be subject to the whims of any individual, including those who don't want you to be free at all.

Of course, all this assumes the law is both just and equally applied.  Which doesn't seem very likely, but is possible and has been managed a couple of times.

I'm sure Roger will have a more detailed explanation, however.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Roo on April 02, 2008, 05:31:22 PM
Still seems to me that rule of law (or rule of the strong) =/= freedom. I mean, I can see how it can be argued that laws (or rules of some kind) are necessary to maintain a state of freedom, but those very laws are the limitations of freedom. Which kinda makes it all just a sham anyway. It's like..."here, you can be free, but only within these walls". So how free are you then? It's the whole BIP idea, if I'm not mistaken. We're all just monkeys in cages, throwing shit at each other.

Yet, somehow...just as we have this strange concept that there's such a thing as fairness, we have this idea that it's possible in this world for people to be free. But (and this was my original point, iirc) here we are talking about freedom, as if we've ever really experienced such a thing. We believe that we have freedom, despite constantly bumping in to the bars of our cages.
Is that really freedom?
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on April 02, 2008, 05:47:31 PM
the absence of law in no way guarantees freedom, and the absence of a BIP would just be a different kind of BIP anyway. the BIP is no more or less than the set of behaviors and opinions and beliefs you use to guide yourself around through life. the rule of law establishes that while the People recognize that freedom should exist, there have got to be limits -- ideally, limits that keep you from using your "freedom" to interfere with somebody else's "freedom." now, of course this system lends itself to overzealous legislation that ends up taking away freedom for no reason other than empty moral posturing or some such bullshit. but that's the nature of the beast, especially in a modern nation where providing a consistent rule of law requires an enormous government.

but would you rather be oppressed by a government that has at least provided a means of being changed by the people, or by some local tyrant who will kill you just for suggesting that somebody should change his mind? without some common authority that everyone can turn to for redress of grievances, you have perpetual in-fighting and war, because there is no mediator recognized as valid by all sides in a dispute: see Third World.

Without the rule of law, you would be oppressed, unless you set up some hippie commune type system where everyone was equal -- but even then there is punishment for breaking the rules, plus those systems are easy picking for conquerors.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on April 02, 2008, 05:49:15 PM
I think it depends on the interpretation of Freedom. I disagree with TGGR, that Laws are necessary for Freedom... it appears to me that they are necessary for a somewhat safe and functioning society, but those do not directly correlate with freedom. In Somolia, I would argue, there is Law, its simply not a law based on Bills voted on by a representative government... its the law of the Warlords.

There was a fantastic argument put together by Lysander Spooner right after the Civil War, which argued that the 'freedom' of the United States ended with that War. Even though the man was an abolitionist, wrote several essays on why slavery was unconstitutional and how slavery could be abolished... he considered the Civil War to have replaced the Free Association of States, with Association at Gunpoint... thus making all citizens slaves.

The 'law of the land', in my opinion, directly opposes Personal Freedom... since we as individuals don't get to choose if we wish to be a part of this union, this law-based society. Indeed, most citizens have little or no impact on what laws, or what punishments exist or how they are enforced. We elect representatives, whom we hope will pass reasonable laws, yet in practice, we have insane laws that many people disagree with (often including law enforcement officers). If we as individuals, have little or no say in what laws are passed (or which laws we will place ourselves under), then truly we cannot be said to have Freedom. A measure of freedom, along with a measure of safety appears to me, the best that a law based society can provide... and based on historical evidence, it appears that, in such societies, freedom usually decreases over time in an attempt to increase security.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on April 02, 2008, 05:54:24 PM
Quote from: Bertrand Russell

One should respect public opinion insofar as is necessary to avoid starvation and keep out of prison, but anything that goes beyond this is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny.


This has always been my approach to law
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on April 02, 2008, 05:54:41 PM
of course, we as the people do have a say in what laws are passed and enforced. no government, regardless of its philosophical basis, will listen to the people by default. it is the people who motivate their government to action or inaction; when the people don't feel like it's worth their time, then the government isn't all that bad. regardless of how close we get to the world of 1984, and even past that point, the same rules apply: governments are always weaker than their citizens.

as for the civil war and the free association of states, in principle i tend to agree, although in practice if the CSA had been allowed to persist, the 20th century would have been completely different for almost the entire planet, in many places for the worse.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on April 02, 2008, 06:12:27 PM
Quote from: vexati0n on April 02, 2008, 05:54:41 PM
of course, we as the people do have a say in what laws are passed and enforced. no government, regardless of its philosophical basis, will listen to the people by default. it is the people who motivate their government to action or inaction; when the people don't feel like it's worth their time, then the government isn't all that bad. regardless of how close we get to the world of 1984, and even past that point, the same rules apply: governments are always weaker than their citizens.


I think you might have misunderstood my point.

If I do not say "Hey, I like these laws and I'm willing to live under them. Where do I sign?", then I do not have freedom. If the majority decides to outlaw alcohol, marijuana, guns, or whatever other thing they may be inclined to do... then the minority do not have the freedom to say "Ummm, thanks but I'll pass on living by those specific laws." It's not simply an issue of absurd abuses of legislation, such as the USAPATRIOT act. For the US specifically, I am of the opinion that we have far less say in laws than originally intended... at one time, a jury could nullify a law, if they determined that it was a bad law (the jury determined the guilt of the individual and the appropriateness of the law), yet today, most Judges do not allow the topic of Jury Nullification to even be discussed within the courtroom.

Freedom may not necessarily be the best end state for humans, particularly if the humans have to share resources... but let's not confuse the small and relative freedoms we currently have with real freedom, nor the safety provided by law enforcement with the protection of freedom. Freedom and Safety aren't the same thing at all.

Quote
as for the civil war and the free association of states, in principle i tend to agree, although in practice if the CSA had been allowed to persist, the 20th century would have been completely different for almost the entire planet, in many places for the worse.

Perhaps. Though, it seems far more likely to me that if Lincoln would have treated those states as Free Agents, they would probably not have seceded.

In the 1800's, the North maintained almost all of the factories, machinery etc. The South, in general ran plantations and grew foodstuffs. The North was buying imports, even before the Civil War, which would have covered their needs. The South, on the other hand, would have been in a very bad situation and would have had to invest heavily in education and technology in order to survive. Even if they did secede, I think their nation would probably have lasted only a few years and they would have returned to the Union, or the South would be in a much better state re education, industry etc.

Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 02, 2008, 07:50:05 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 02, 2008, 05:49:15 PM
I think it depends on the interpretation of Freedom. I disagree with TGGR, that Laws are necessary for Freedom... it appears to me that they are necessary for a somewhat safe and functioning society, but those do not directly correlate with freedom.

So, the strong dominating the weak is freedom? 

Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 02, 2008, 07:51:21 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 02, 2008, 06:12:27 PM
Perhaps. Though, it seems far more likely to me that if Lincoln would have treated those states as Free Agents, they would probably not have seceded.

Perhaps, but we'll never know.  They rebelled before he had a chance to do anything, whatsoever.

Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 02, 2008, 07:52:08 PM
Quote from: vexati0n on April 02, 2008, 05:54:41 PM
as for the civil war and the free association of states, in principle i tend to agree, although in practice if the CSA had been allowed to persist, the 20th century would have been completely different for almost the entire planet, in many places for the worse.

In all ways for the worse.  The CSA was a study in barbarism.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on April 02, 2008, 08:50:25 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 02, 2008, 07:50:05 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 02, 2008, 05:49:15 PM
I think it depends on the interpretation of Freedom. I disagree with TGGR, that Laws are necessary for Freedom... it appears to me that they are necessary for a somewhat safe and functioning society, but those do not directly correlate with freedom.

So, the strong dominating the weak is freedom? 



Exactly the opposite. ANY domination is a restriction of Freedom. It matters little if it is the Strong Warlord or the Strong Political Party. Anytime the Strong can make demands of the Weak, then the weak are not free.

What is implied by Law, who is rightly able to create Law and enforce that law on all people? If we argue that it is the strongest group that can force law over the weaker group (as seen in the Civil War), then there exists little difference between such a system and the worst sort of despotism. If we argue that it is the majority over the minority (such as with laws in the United States), ten we must determine where the magic number is for this mystical majority. For surely, two men do not have the right to take freedom away from one man. Do 20 have the right to take freedom from one man? Do 200? 2,000? 2,000,000? If it is a restriction of freedom when done by two, then it is a restriction of freedom when done by 2,000,000.

I am not stating that our society would be better off without laws, only that laws do not 'ensure freedom', they ensure safety, at the cost of freedom. A cost that most societies seem happy to pay.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 02, 2008, 07:51:21 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 02, 2008, 06:12:27 PM
Perhaps. Though, it seems far more likely to me that if Lincoln would have treated those states as Free Agents, they would probably not have seceded.

Perhaps, but we'll never know.  They rebelled before he had a chance to do anything, whatsoever.


And how, in a voluntary association, does one 'rebel'?
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 02, 2008, 09:13:07 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 02, 2008, 08:50:25 PM

Exactly the opposite. ANY domination is a restriction of Freedom.

Then you need the rule of law.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 02, 2008, 09:14:11 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 02, 2008, 08:50:25 PM

And how, in a voluntary association, does one 'rebel'?

Please point out where in the constitution the association is voluntary...because I can point out more than a couple of cases where it DOES mention rebellion. 
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 02, 2008, 09:15:08 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 02, 2008, 08:50:25 PM
If we argue that it is the majority over the minority (such as with laws in the United States),

That isn't how laws in the United States work.

Just saying.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on April 02, 2008, 09:43:52 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 02, 2008, 09:14:11 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 02, 2008, 08:50:25 PM

And how, in a voluntary association, does one 'rebel'?

Please point out where in the constitution the association is voluntary...because I can point out more than a couple of cases where it DOES mention rebellion. 

At the time of the Civil War, not more than a couple generations removed from our own 'Rebellion', I would point you to the position we held in the Declaration of Independence:
Quote
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

This is the position we held when we separated from England. ALL power of the government rests with the people. The people HAVE THE RIGHT to remove their consent from that government, alter it, abolish it and form a new one. This is exactly what the southern states did, and believed that it was their right.

The United States had held, since its inception with the Declaration, that this nation was governed on consent. Consent of the states, consent of the People. It stands to reason then, that if this consent were to be withdrawn (as the colonies did with England), then such a government could no longer rule those who did not consent.

This key issue was hotly debated in the years after the Revolution and before the Civil War. The only settlement to the issue was superior firepower and resources on the part of the North and, once the war was over the 14th Amendment and later Supreme Court rulings. In fact, when reading a number of historical political documents, its clear that many of the founding fathers, Jefferson and Madison wrote "The Kentucky and Virginia Resolves" which held that the United States was a Union of States, since state representatives ratified the Constitution... and that as such, States freely entered into association and could freely leave. Others, felt that States were only a bureaucratic solution to provide local services. However, at the time of the Civil War, there were no Citizens of the United States. There were citizens of Ohio, N.C., S.C., Virginia, etc. so it would seem a difficult argument to say that the US was a union of People, rather than a union of States.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 02, 2008, 09:15:08 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 02, 2008, 08:50:25 PM
If we argue that it is the majority over the minority (such as with laws in the United States),

That isn't how laws in the United States work.

Just saying.

Well, it is.

The majority vote, the representatives of the majority meet and create bills, those bills are ratified by other representatives of the majority and signed by the President, elected by the Majority.

Any law, except those upon which everyone has agreed, is either instated by the majority or by the powerful. In either situation, it is the strong (physically or politically) dominating the weak.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on April 02, 2008, 11:09:43 PM
Whether States should, ideally, be free to associate/dissociate isn't the point though. That's one of those cases where what seems like common sense to some people is just past the point of taking a thought too far for other people. If the CSA had been allowed to secede, even if that makes sense on some level of anti-Federalist thinking, it would have called into question the validity of the US Constitution. For reasons of national security it was best to keep the Union together -- with the constant threat of secession and the dissolution of the Union, no long-term national project or action could ever have taken place. The US would be reduced to a bunch of bickering, in-fighting States, and wouldn't have the capacity to do anything as a single nation, ever.

That means no victories in WW1 and WW2, no Civil Rights movement, no Universal Suffrage. When any state could at any moment say "fuck you, we'll just secede," it eliminates the possibility of moving the entire country through difficult stages. It might conflict to some degree with the idealism of the Revolution, but when you're talking about leading a real nation full of stupid people, sometimes you have to betray the ideals that  might allow more enlightened people to cope with hard times.

The same argument applies to the Rule of Law. There are way too many idiots running around trying to impose their will on other people as it is -- imagine if there were no strong government to stop at least the worst of these people from succeeding. It isn't perfect, and it's sliding backwards all the time, but that doesn't negate the fact that without a universal government you cannot have anywhere near universal enforcement of justice.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Golden Applesauce on April 02, 2008, 11:12:12 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 02, 2008, 08:50:25 PMI am not stating that our society would be better off without laws, only that laws do not 'ensure freedom', they ensure safety, at the cost of freedom. A cost that most societies seem happy to pay.

You can't have freedom without safety.  It can't fairly be said that I have the freedom to express my opinions if there is nothing to stop people from lynching me for it.  All you've done is traded rule of law for rule by violence.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on April 03, 2008, 12:01:05 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on April 02, 2008, 11:12:12 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 02, 2008, 08:50:25 PMI am not stating that our society would be better off without laws, only that laws do not 'ensure freedom', they ensure safety, at the cost of freedom. A cost that most societies seem happy to pay.

You can't have freedom without safety.  It can't fairly be said that I have the freedom to express my opinions if there is nothing to stop people from lynching me for it.  All you've done is traded rule of law for rule by violence.

I'm not arguing that anarchy is good, or better. Only that the rule of law (as implemented here and elsewhere) appears a tyranny, somewhat benign, perhaps, but a tyranny still. If all men have a natural freedom (the backbone of the Enlightenment and the foundation of the philosophy used in the creation of the United States) as an inalienable right, a right to self ownership, to call no man master, to seek their own route to happiness and to hold complete control over themselves and their possessions as long as their actions do not impinge upon the rights of others... then any law that he is placed under, without his first agreeing to it, is a reduction of his freedom.



Quote from: Lysander SpoonerHow is it that each of them comes to be stripped of his natural, God-given rights, and to be incorporated, compressed, compacted, and consolidated into a mass with other men, whom he never saw; with whom he has no contract; and towards many of whom he has no sentiments but fear, hatred, or contempt? How does he become subjected to the control of men like himself, who, by nature, had no authority over him; but who command him to do this, and forbid him to do that, as if they were his sovereigns, and he their subject; and as if their wills and their interests were the only standards of his duties and his rights; and who compel him to submission under peril of confiscation, imprisonment, and death?

Society cannot exist without law, anarchy would surely reduce the amount of freedom that most people would experience. However, these truths don't mean that we are currently free... we're just far less molested by our Warlords.

Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 03, 2008, 04:07:41 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 02, 2008, 08:50:25 PM
Exactly the opposite. ANY domination is a restriction of Freedom. It matters little if it is the Strong Warlord or the Strong Political Party. Anytime the Strong can make demands of the Weak, then the weak are not free.

On the other hand, the idea of a republic is that the majority rule within the constraints of law.

Take your pic:  The rule of law, or anarchy.  Yes, you do have to choose.

The ONLY chance the weak have for freedom is under the rule of law.

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 02, 2008, 08:50:25 PM
I am not stating that our society would be better off without laws, only that laws do not 'ensure freedom', they ensure safety, at the cost of freedom. A cost that most societies seem happy to pay.

Nonsense.  Amendments II, IV, IX, and X promote freedom at the expense of security.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 03, 2008, 04:08:58 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 03, 2008, 12:01:05 AM


I'm not arguing that anarchy is good, or better. Only that the rule of law (as implemented here and elsewhere) appears a tyranny, somewhat benign, perhaps, but a tyranny still.

Sophistry.

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 02, 2008, 08:50:25 PM
Society cannot exist without law, anarchy would surely reduce the amount of freedom that most people would experience. However, these truths don't mean that we are currently free... we're just far less molested by our Warlords.

So you're saying that freedom is impossible. 

Meh.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 03, 2008, 04:10:44 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 02, 2008, 09:43:52 PM


Well, it is.

No, it isn't. 

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 02, 2008, 09:43:52 PM

The majority vote, the representatives of the majority meet and create bills, those bills are ratified by other representatives of the majority and signed by the President, elected by the Majority.

Um, yeah, you forgot about the part where the laws are subordinate to the constitution, regardless of the will of the majority.

Or are you one of those people who say that your inability to force your beliefs on others is a violation of your freedom?
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 03, 2008, 04:11:49 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 02, 2008, 09:43:52 PM

At the time of the Civil War, not more than a couple generations removed from our own 'Rebellion', I would point you to the position we held in the Declaration of Independence:


Amazingly enough, the DoI is not a US legal document or law.

Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Cainad (dec.) on April 03, 2008, 04:55:27 AM
In a completely free society, the weak are free to submit to the strong, and the strong are free to take advantage of it. The weak are also free to bring down their peers who do not submit to the strong, lest the wrath of the strong be wreaked upon them. And that's more or less what they do. Yay freedom.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Messier Undertree on April 03, 2008, 05:02:07 AM
Quote from: Cainad on April 03, 2008, 04:55:27 AM
the weak are free to submit to the strong

It's not a freedom if they have no choice but to do so. o-o
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 03, 2008, 05:02:44 AM
Quote from: davedim on April 03, 2008, 05:02:07 AM
Quote from: Cainad on April 03, 2008, 04:55:27 AM
the weak are free to submit to the strong

It's not a freedom if they have no choice but to do so. o-o

STOP HATING FREEDOM AND LOVING TERRORISTS!    :argh!:
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Messier Undertree on April 03, 2008, 05:05:10 AM
:jihaad:
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 03, 2008, 05:11:04 AM
Quote from: davedim on April 03, 2008, 05:05:10 AM
:jihaad:

Anything and anyone is funny, if you loop them right.

Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Triple Zero on April 03, 2008, 11:09:27 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 03, 2008, 05:11:04 AM
Quote from: davedim on April 03, 2008, 05:05:10 AM
:jihaad:

Anything and anyone is funny, if you loop them right.


:mittens:

finally, this thread is going somewhere that i understand :)
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on April 03, 2008, 03:31:03 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 03, 2008, 04:07:41 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 02, 2008, 08:50:25 PM
Exactly the opposite. ANY domination is a restriction of Freedom. It matters little if it is the Strong Warlord or the Strong Political Party. Anytime the Strong can make demands of the Weak, then the weak are not free.

On the other hand, the idea of a republic is that the majority rule within the constraints of law.

Take your pic:  The rule of law, or anarchy.  Yes, you do have to choose.

Yes, in some sense, you're right. Using the definition of Freedom, that I mentioned before (complete personal freedom as long as it doesn't impact the freedom of others), I think that its obvious that some sort of laws would be required to deal with the potential infringement by someone on someone else's freedom.  However, those laws don't reduce freedom, since freedom (as defined above) would not extend to impacting the freedom of others. However, ANY LAW beyond those, which is notvoluntarily agreed upon by the individual free person is a reduction of that persons freedom. In some cases, it may be useful (like taxes), in some cases it may be due to rule by loud minority or a loud majority, Constitution be damned (see Prohibition etc).

Upon reflection, then I must amend my initial statement. The rule of law protects freedom, as long as 1) The law is to protect the freedom of Individual A from Individual B, or 2) The law is agreed upon by the individual humans involved. Law can protect the weak from the strong and some of our laws do just that. Laws can also restrict the freedom of the individual and some of our laws do just that.


Quote from: Ratatosk on April 02, 2008, 08:50:25 PM
I am not stating that our society would be better off without laws, only that laws do not 'ensure freedom', they ensure safety, at the cost of freedom. A cost that most societies seem happy to pay.

Nonsense.  Amendments II, IV, IX, and X promote freedom at the expense of security.

[/quote]

I'll give you 4, 9 and 10 as laws specifically designed to protect individuals from having their freedom infringed upon (as I mentioned above), but the second amendment was primarily for security purposes (ie having a well trained militia). If the second amendment 'ensured freedom' then there wouldn't be the myriad of gun control laws across the states today, would there?

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 03, 2008, 04:10:44 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 02, 2008, 09:43:52 PM

The majority vote, the representatives of the majority meet and create bills, those bills are ratified by other representatives of the majority and signed by the President, elected by the Majority.

Um, yeah, you forgot about the part where the laws are subordinate to the constitution, regardless of the will of the majority.

Or are you one of those people who say that your inability to force your beliefs on others is a violation of your freedom?

Not sure what your last sentence was intended to mean, but again, I would point to Prohibition as an excellent example of how the will of a subset of citizens can be forced upon all citizens and the Constitution can be amended to make it OK... amended without the consent of the individuals held to the resulting restrictions.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 03, 2008, 04:11:49 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 02, 2008, 09:43:52 PM

At the time of the Civil War, not more than a couple generations removed from our own 'Rebellion', I would point you to the position we held in the Declaration of Independence:


Amazingly enough, the DoI is not a US legal document or law.



The DoI was the document we used to justify the secession of the colonies from England. It was what the United States provided to the world as its rationale. Our actions in the Civil War, belied that philosophy. Either The People are the ultimate governor of government and have the right to remove themselves from its control (as we did with England), or they do not (as the South found out in the Civil War). But as you say, it is not a legal document...

Oh NOES!!! Silly me looking at the entirety of the founding documents of this nation to learn more about the philosophy that the nation was founded upon!!! I should have just read the Constitution, obviously its completely clear and never needs interpreted or clarified.

Except the bit where it said nothing for or against secession and also said that the powers not enumerated were retained by the People...

Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Requia ☣ on April 03, 2008, 06:26:36 PM
 :oops:The DoI was not a justification of anything, it was a *declaration*, a simple notice to england that the 13 colonies were finished with playing nice.  Not that england hadn't already figured it out with all the fighting that was already going on.

If Jefferson hadn't been such an incredible writer, nobody would even remember the document exists.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on April 03, 2008, 06:48:51 PM
Quote from: Requiem on April 03, 2008, 06:26:36 PM
:oops:The DoI was not a justification of anything, it was a *declaration*, a simple notice to england that the 13 colonies were finished with playing nice.  Not that england hadn't already figured it out with all the fighting that was already going on.

If Jefferson hadn't been such an incredible writer, nobody would even remember the document exists.

...

Well, perhaps my history professors were wrong, as most of them claimed that the declaration was a justification and a way of establishing clear reasons for their rebellion aaginst england (both for the colonists that were not yet supporting the revolution and to other nations), so that this new nation would be accepted on the world scene. The statement of Independence had been completed on the second of July IIRC and the formal Declaration was intended to formalize the statement and provide the rationale.

But, maybe thats not true.

Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Requia ☣ on April 03, 2008, 06:54:55 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 03, 2008, 06:48:51 PM
Quote from: Requiem on April 03, 2008, 06:26:36 PM
:oops:The DoI was not a justification of anything, it was a *declaration*, a simple notice to england that the 13 colonies were finished with playing nice.  Not that england hadn't already figured it out with all the fighting that was already going on.

If Jefferson hadn't been such an incredible writer, nobody would even remember the document exists.

...

Well, perhaps my history professors were wrong, as most of them claimed that the declaration was a justification and a way of establishing clear reasons for their rebellion aaginst england (both for the colonists that were not yet supporting the revolution and to other nations), so that this new nation would be accepted on the world scene. The statement of Independence had been completed on the second of July IIRC and the formal Declaration was intended to formalize the statement and provide the rationale.

But, maybe thats not true.



OK, so its also a rabble rousing piece.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on April 03, 2008, 07:45:47 PM
The Declaration is not a legally binding document. It was a set of justifications, mostly for the purpose of clarifying the intentions of the Colonists and for appealing to foreign governments for assistance and recognition. It is, in principal, the same philosophy that was espoused by the CSA. But the motivations for the North in keeping the Union together were not the same motivations of the King of England for trying to keep the Colonies from breaking away from the British Empire.  To begin with, the Southern States were full-fledged members of the Union and nobody was trying to deny them that, they were trying to keep them from breaking the Union up. Secondly, a colony declaring independence from the Colonizer is not the same as half a nation parting ways with the rest of the nation. If the South were allowed to do that, it would call into question the validity and purpose of the federal government altogether, in effect nullifying the entire USA as a coherent political body. Even if other states never seceded, it wouldn't take much to interpret the "right" of secession as an effective excuse for States to disregard the legal supremacy of the Constitution, which would basically have led to the same situation the country was in with the failure of the Articles of Confederation.

In any case, it is not a Declaration that grants a new or separatist political faction any legal authority or even the right to exist. Only by successfully convincing those who would destroy them can they secure that right. So the CSA never had the right to secede, precisely because they lost the Civil War.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Cain on April 03, 2008, 08:11:37 PM
In insurgency parlance, the DoI was the plausible promise of the sepratists of their vision of society, as far as I can see.  Part media manifesto, part vision and part rallying document for the cause.

That's not to say its not a brilliant piece of writing as well, but functionally, it was a 18th century Rant.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 04, 2008, 02:02:12 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 03, 2008, 03:31:03 PM

Yes, in some sense, you're right. Using the definition of Freedom, that I mentioned before (complete personal freedom as long as it doesn't impact the freedom of others), I think that its obvious that some sort of laws would be required to deal with the potential infringement by someone on someone else's freedom.  However, those laws don't reduce freedom, since freedom (as defined above) would not extend to impacting the freedom of others. However, ANY LAW beyond those, which is notvoluntarily agreed upon by the individual free person is a reduction of that persons freedom.

True.  Freedom is not served by pot laws, for example.

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 03, 2008, 03:31:03 PM
I'll give you 4, 9 and 10 as laws specifically designed to protect individuals from having their freedom infringed upon (as I mentioned above), but the second amendment was primarily for security purposes (ie having a well trained militia). If the second amendment 'ensured freedom' then there wouldn't be the myriad of gun control laws across the states today, would there?

1.  According to Franklin and Jefferson, the 2d was included specifically to keep the people free by maintaining a credible threat against a tyrannical government.

2.  True.  But America has turned sissy, and freedom isn't for sissies.

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 02, 2008, 09:43:52 PM
Not sure what your last sentence was intended to mean, but again, I would point to Prohibition as an excellent example of how the will of a subset of citizens can be forced upon all citizens and the Constitution can be amended to make it OK... amended without the consent of the individuals held to the resulting restrictions.

Name ONE collection of humans that doesn't have pushy puritanical bastards.  Occasionally, every rat has his day.



Quote from: Ratatosk on April 02, 2008, 09:43:52 PM
The DoI was the document we used to justify the secession of the colonies from England. It was what the United States provided to the world as its rationale. Our actions in the Civil War, belied that philosophy. Either The People are the ultimate governor of government and have the right to remove themselves from its control (as we did with England), or they do not (as the South found out in the Civil War). But as you say, it is not a legal document...

Oh NOES!!! Silly me looking at the entirety of the founding documents of this nation to learn more about the philosophy that the nation was founded upon!!! I should have just read the Constitution, obviously its completely clear and never needs interpreted or clarified.

The fact remains:  the DoI is not an article of law.


Quote from: Ratatosk on April 02, 2008, 09:43:52 PM
Except the bit where it said nothing for or against secession and also said that the powers not enumerated were retained by the People...

Article I, sec 9, clause 2 allows the congress to take action in event of insurrection.



Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 04, 2008, 02:02:35 AM
Quote from: Cain on April 03, 2008, 08:11:37 PM
In insurgency parlance, the DoI was the plausible promise of the sepratists of their vision of society, as far as I can see.  Part media manifesto, part vision and part rallying document for the cause.

That's not to say its not a brilliant piece of writing as well, but functionally, it was a 18th century Rant.

And a glorious list of bitches it was.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Roo on April 04, 2008, 02:37:17 AM
Quote from: vexati0n on April 03, 2008, 07:45:47 PM
In any case, it is not a Declaration that grants a new or separatist political faction any legal authority or even the right to exist. Only by successfully convincing those who would destroy them can they secure that right. So the CSA never had the right to secede, precisely because they lost the Civil War.

I think that's a sloppy argument. The CSA had the right to secede. There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids it, iirc. They lost that right when they lost the war, but they did have it to begin with (or else how did they secede in the first place?). Is that the same as never having had that right?
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on April 04, 2008, 02:41:00 AM
Quote from: Roo on April 04, 2008, 02:37:17 AM
Quote from: vexati0n on April 03, 2008, 07:45:47 PM
In any case, it is not a Declaration that grants a new or separatist political faction any legal authority or even the right to exist. Only by successfully convincing those who would destroy them can they secure that right. So the CSA never had the right to secede, precisely because they lost the Civil War.

I think that's a sloppy argument. The CSA had the right to secede. There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids it, iirc. They lost that right when they lost the war, but they did have it to begin with (or else how did they secede in the first place?). Is that the same as never having had that right?


If they lost the right, by losing the war... then does might make right?
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Requia ☣ on April 04, 2008, 03:04:29 AM
Though south had an option to propose a bill to secede, or a constitutional amendment,  They simply decided to leave, and did so quite violently, before the union had any chance to respond.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Chairman Risus on April 04, 2008, 03:06:36 AM
That's pretty much how we still do things to this day.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 04, 2008, 03:23:22 AM
Quote from: Roo on April 04, 2008, 02:37:17 AM


I think that's a sloppy argument. The CSA had the right to secede. There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids it, iirc.


Yeah, except that I already showed that the US "government" is empowered to resist insurrection.

For those of you who "didn't catch it", article I, sec 9, clause 2.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on April 04, 2008, 03:40:23 AM
Might in some cases does make right, and the creation of a new nation is one of those cases. It isn't because I'm a big Ragnar Redbeard fan or anything, but it's never really in the immediate best interests of any nation for part of it (let alone an entire half) to declare independence from the whole, so no nation can really be expected to just "let it happen," regardless of its philosophical foundation.

In these cases, it is up to the newly created State to declare its own existence - not just on paper but in every means that becomes necessary. If a people truly believe themselves to be free, then they will fight for that freedom. If they fail, then they obviously are not actually free. If they succeed, then they have a foundation of actual events on which they can base the authority of their own laws.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Roo on April 04, 2008, 03:44:20 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 04, 2008, 03:23:22 AM
Quote from: Roo on April 04, 2008, 02:37:17 AM


I think that's a sloppy argument. The CSA had the right to secede. There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids it, iirc.


Yeah, except that I already showed that the US "government" is empowered to resist insurrection.

For those of you who "didn't catch it", article I, sec 9, clause 2.

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

oh goody. guess that's why they need the FEMA camps.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 04, 2008, 03:50:55 AM
Quote from: Roo on April 04, 2008, 03:44:20 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 04, 2008, 03:23:22 AM
Quote from: Roo on April 04, 2008, 02:37:17 AM


I think that's a sloppy argument. The CSA had the right to secede. There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids it, iirc.


Yeah, except that I already showed that the US "government" is empowered to resist insurrection.

For those of you who "didn't catch it", article I, sec 9, clause 2.

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

oh goody. guess that's why they need the FEMA camps.

And now all they need is a legal means of calling dissenters "terrorists", "insurgents", or "radicals".

Oh, yeah, S1959.

I CALL DIBS ON THE SHOWERS!

Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on April 04, 2008, 04:20:46 AM
I know "Habeas Corpus" isn't in English, but I'm not sure it translates to "Everything this country has ever stood for"
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 04, 2008, 04:46:02 AM
Quote from: vexati0n on April 04, 2008, 04:20:46 AM
I know "Habeas Corpus" isn't in English, but I'm not sure it translates to "Everything this country has ever stood for"

Close.  It stands for:  "The thing a far better generation fought a tyrant for, so you could piss it away in a fit of cowardice."
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on April 04, 2008, 04:59:38 AM
at least that leaves the door open to a future far better generation.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 04, 2008, 05:04:36 AM
Quote from: vexati0n on April 04, 2008, 04:59:38 AM
at least that leaves the door open to a future far better generation.

Past events are no indication of future performance.

In all the 10,000 years since we learned to plant crops, how many republican eras have their been?

Oh, yeah.  Two.

But, hey, there's a bus along every 1500 years or so.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on April 04, 2008, 05:43:12 AM
something tells me that the 20th century's infusion of easy new technology has been the only thing keeping america from slipping into outright totalitarianism anyway. easier to keep people obedient by entertaining them than by the Jackboot Method, for now.

the great tragedy is that a movement borne of the Enlightenment, which was noble enough in its time, is on a 100% Bullshit Drip life support system these days.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Cain on April 04, 2008, 01:49:55 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 04, 2008, 02:41:00 AM
Quote from: Roo on April 04, 2008, 02:37:17 AM
Quote from: vexati0n on April 03, 2008, 07:45:47 PM
In any case, it is not a Declaration that grants a new or separatist political faction any legal authority or even the right to exist. Only by successfully convincing those who would destroy them can they secure that right. So the CSA never had the right to secede, precisely because they lost the Civil War.

I think that's a sloppy argument. The CSA had the right to secede. There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids it, iirc. They lost that right when they lost the war, but they did have it to begin with (or else how did they secede in the first place?). Is that the same as never having had that right?


If they lost the right, by losing the war... then does might make right?

Historically, that has been the major political analysis.

Classical or Neorealism are the names of the theories you wish to peruse.  Generally, Liberal Realism tries to create institutions to avoid such situations, or manage them more effectively.

Its hard to link up inter-state/international theories with general political theory as well.  Realism can be Henry Kissinger...or it can be Hans Morgenthau (who was spied on for his comments about the futility of the Vietnam War). Equally, Liberalism in international relations can produce a Václav Havel, or a Francis Fukuyama.  I wont even get into Marxism....where Stalin and all the leaders who followed him were Realists of one sort of another.

None of this is to say that might makes right is in fact right.  I dont think it is.  But international relations, especially up to the Cold War, were dominated by Classical or Neorealist thought.  Only the collapse of the Cold War, via peaceful methods, and the claims of the NeoCons that economic liberalisms inherent rightness would alone topple the Soviet Union, brought liberalism to a prominent position.  In short, historically, might has been seen as right and events have been interpretated through that lense.  Along with the strange divide between internal politics and external (one I believe is partially abritrary and a result of bad understanding of political philosophy, more than any actual difference) has made analysis in this area tricky, to say the least.

I personally think we should rethink political philosophy entirely, taking into account foreign policy standards and internal policies and try to find links and groupings between them.  Its not a very popular theory however, since it pretty much undermines the existence of my entire degree as a stand-alone course and discipline.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on April 04, 2008, 04:33:23 PM
I think I got sidetracked and somehow fubar'd my argument. Apologies all around.

Rather than restating it and debating over my poor choice of argument, I would like to discuss the documents that I was drawing a lot of those ideas from (poorly as I may have done). So, rather than arguing with everyone here, could we discuss the merits and flaws of the series of essays by Lysander Spooner entitled "No Treason"? I find these a very compelling argument, though my implementation was, apparently, flawed.

http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm#no1 (http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm#no1)

The entire series is available at the link. I'd like opinions etc.

I ran across Spooner while taking RAW's class on Non-Euclidean Politics and found the argument fascinating. However, I am certianly willing to accept that the argument is wrong or broken. That's why I'm asking for a discussion of it here.

If people are interested, then YAY, if not then tell me to fnord off and I'll just shut up on this thread. :fnord:
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Cain on April 04, 2008, 04:37:48 PM
I havent read Spooner's arguments (although I'm about to) but I just wanted to point out much of the analysis by minarchists and anarchists generally holds that the north should have allowed the south to leave, and then slaves and workers in both should have overthown the governments and dissolved the state (or devolved it as far as possible).

This is the general position, among anarchist circles.  Some disagree, naturally, but it seems to be consensus, and I just wanted to point out some of the thinking behind that analysis.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on April 04, 2008, 04:40:48 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 04, 2008, 04:37:48 PM
I havent read Spooner's arguments (although I'm about to) but I just wanted to point out much of the analysis by minarchists and anarchists generally holds that the north should have allowed the south to leave, and then slaves and workers in both should have overthown the governments and dissolved the state (or devolved it as far as possible).

This is the general position, among anarchist circles.  Some disagree, naturally, but it seems to be consensus, and I just wanted to point out some of the thinking behind that analysis.

I would have to agree with your statement there... that does seem to be the view of most anarchists... except the ones that seem to confuse anarchy with communism (which always tends to startle me).

Mostly I wanted to shift gears, because I realized every fucking post I dropped in the past day or so, was in some knid of debate... Damned Iron Bar....
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Cain on April 04, 2008, 04:46:00 PM
ANARCHO-COMMUNISM ROOLZ! 

THE ONLY WAY WE CAN DISSOLVE THE STATE IS TO LET THE STATE CONTROL EVERYTHING!  ITS LOGIC, SEE??

Actually, Anarcho-Communism may be the single most Discordian position in politics. Overburden the state with control of everything, and let it collapse under its own paperwork, inefficiency, politicking and stupidity.

But I may be giving away too much of the content of my next rant here.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on April 04, 2008, 04:51:32 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 04, 2008, 04:46:00 PM
ANARCHO-COMMUNISM ROOLZ! 

THE ONLY WAY WE CAN DISSOLVE THE STATE IS TO LET THE STATE CONTROL EVERYTHING!  ITS LOGIC, SEE??

Actually, Anarcho-Communism may be the single most Discordian position in politics. Overburden the state with control of everything, and let it collapse under its own paperwork, inefficiency, politicking and stupidity.

But I may be giving away too much of the content of my next rant here.

LOL troof.

I see anarcho-communism as an interesting position... particularly in the small commune sense (basically every town would be its own independent commune). But it suffers from the same flaw as every other form of government, it assumes the best in humans.

The only reasonable anarchist position I've seen yet, was Prof. La Paz's Rational Anarchism, ala Heinlein in "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress"...
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: LMNO on April 04, 2008, 07:29:31 PM
Oddly enough, I used a variation on that logic in the first few chapters of LMNO-PI, where Gvt, Inc had quantum storage, but not quantum processing.

So, they knew everything, but had no idea what anyone was doing.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 06, 2008, 06:59:06 AM
Quote from: Cain on April 04, 2008, 04:37:48 PM
I havent read Spooner's arguments (although I'm about to) but I just wanted to point out much of the analysis by minarchists and anarchists generally holds that the north should have allowed the south to leave, and then slaves and workers in both should have overthown the governments and dissolved the state (or devolved it as far as possible).

This is the general position, among anarchist circles.  Some disagree, naturally, but it seems to be consensus, and I just wanted to point out some of the thinking behind that analysis.

And it is, of course, rubbish.

What the South was trying to create was a permanent aristocracy.  The poor Southern Whites fought like hell for the right to be a permanent underclass.  What would lead anyone to believe that they would then fight the very aristocrats they fought to install?

And the North?  All you need to know about the North and its capability for dealing with uppity drones occurred at Kent State, back in the Nixon days.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 06, 2008, 07:00:12 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 04, 2008, 04:51:32 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 04, 2008, 04:46:00 PM
ANARCHO-COMMUNISM ROOLZ! 

THE ONLY WAY WE CAN DISSOLVE THE STATE IS TO LET THE STATE CONTROL EVERYTHING!  ITS LOGIC, SEE??

Actually, Anarcho-Communism may be the single most Discordian position in politics. Overburden the state with control of everything, and let it collapse under its own paperwork, inefficiency, politicking and stupidity.

But I may be giving away too much of the content of my next rant here.

LOL troof.

I see anarcho-communism as an interesting position... particularly in the small commune sense (basically every town would be its own independent commune). But it suffers from the same flaw as every other form of government, it assumes the best in humans.

The only reasonable anarchist position I've seen yet, was Prof. La Paz's Rational Anarchism, ala Heinlein in "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress"...


Blarg.  Heinlien was an even worse political philosopher than Ayn Rand.

Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Cain on April 06, 2008, 01:29:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 06, 2008, 06:59:06 AM
Quote from: Cain on April 04, 2008, 04:37:48 PM
I havent read Spooner's arguments (although I'm about to) but I just wanted to point out much of the analysis by minarchists and anarchists generally holds that the north should have allowed the south to leave, and then slaves and workers in both should have overthown the governments and dissolved the state (or devolved it as far as possible).

This is the general position, among anarchist circles.  Some disagree, naturally, but it seems to be consensus, and I just wanted to point out some of the thinking behind that analysis.

And it is, of course, rubbish.

What the South was trying to create was a permanent aristocracy.  The poor Southern Whites fought like hell for the right to be a permanent underclass.  What would lead anyone to believe that they would then fight the very aristocrats they fought to install?

And the North?  All you need to know about the North and its capability for dealing with uppity drones occurred at Kent State, back in the Nixon days.

Well thats Anarchists for you.  Many seem to believe the overall universal trend of humanity is towards decentralization, whereas pretty much everyone else can see it tends to centralization.  Hunter-gatherers > Tribes > City states > Feudal aristocracy > modern states > super states/empires > economic cooperation groups.

I have no problem with people fighting against the currents of social organization, but a good first step is to recognizing the way the world is, and not how one would like it to be.  Its very similar to the Marxist conceit about The Inevitability of the Revolution.  Because of that, they believe leaving the situation long enough would have resulted in a better solution, even though in the meantime hundreds of thousands would have suffered.  Its sortof the same reason why they are against welfare, because it continues the existence of the state and keeps the poor people in debt to it and reliant on it, thus unwilling to overthrow it.  The idea is to remove all these safety mechanisms, and then let people be treated badly enough that they are willing to go destroy the state itself.

Unfortunately, I dont recall that happening in many slaver societies, let alone far worse ones such as the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.  Which is why I have problems with the Anarchist analysis.

Spooner, however, seems to be arguing that the Constitution is a contract, in the very real sense, that requires consent from all parties to be considered valid.  Which is an entirely different, and far less interesting argument, because it passes from socio-political theory into the area of Constitutional debate, which is not as obviously important to me.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Messier Undertree on April 06, 2008, 01:43:55 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 06, 2008, 01:29:48 PMIts very similar to the Marxist conceit about The Inevitability of the Revolution.  Because of that, they believe leaving the situation long enough would have resulted in a better solution, even though in the meantime hundreds of thousands would have suffered.  Its sortof the same reason why they are against welfare, because it continues the existence of the state and keeps the poor people in debt to it and reliant on it, thus unwilling to overthrow it.  The idea is to remove all these safety mechanisms, and then let people be treated badly enough that they are willing to go destroy the state itself.

[citation needed]

Sorry, but I've never met a Marxist who's against welfare and public provision in my life.

Some might see it as unsustainable or as some sort of concession from the bourgeoisie that leads people to accept the system as it is, but they do not campaign for the abolition of welfare.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Cain on April 06, 2008, 01:47:38 PM
http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/display/31

The contemporary welfare state belatedly provides the guarantees of survival which were demanded by the disinherited members of the production society of former days (1). Richness of survival entails the pauperisation of life (2). Purchasing power is licence to purchase power, to become an object in the order of things. The tendency is for both oppressor and oppressed to fall, albeit at different speeds, under one and the same dictatorship: the dictatorship of consumer goods (3).


And actually, I was referring to Anarchists, but since you asked...
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Messier Undertree on April 06, 2008, 02:01:26 PM
That article hardly calls for the abolition of welfare under a capitalist system, now does it?

It seems to me to be pointing out how welfare leads people to accept things as they are so long as they have a TV and a car.

It doesn't really argue that welfare should be abolished while capitalism is upheld.

As far as I can see anyway.

But yeah. Some anarchist currents are insane like that, so I can't really speak for all of those.
Title: Re: mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama
Post by: Cain on April 06, 2008, 02:06:25 PM
I dont believe I can recall any situation or context where the pauperization of life would be considered a good thing.  Unless you own a Fortune 500 company, perhaps.

But yes, it is an Anarchist thing.  Not all Anarchists but many, and fits into their logic, if not the actual reality of the situation.  Its kind of the logic behind the Aneristic delusion, only retarded because it rarely ever happens that way.