I like my rights. I like rights, and I think we should all have a lot of them. For this, the current political system would call me a libertarian.
This is a problem. I've seen libertarian arguments, and I don't agree with any of them. Sure, freedom is nice, but is the shrinking of government really the answer? It seems that the current libertarian school of thought is based on a false dichotomy: the only answer to problems involving authority is to either shrink or increase government. This just doesn't make sense to me.
I don't think anybody here likes corporations any more than I do. I don' t think any of us want corporations to have any more power over us than they already do. Now, I won't say that the government as it is is doing a good job of keeping them in check, but at least there are some laws in place to hold CEOs accountable for their actions. Personally, I think it makes sense to pass a set of laws placing greater restriction on powerful corporations and what they can do. This is one example of how increased government can be applied in a positive manner.
Another reason not to decrease government in its totality is simple, and Doktor Howl brought it up recently in another thread: Services.
Roads. Running water. Electricity. A public education system(as horribly incompetent as its employees are). I could go on.
Problem: We are losing our rights.
Problem: More than one entity wants to take them away.
Problem: We like our services, though.
Let's discuss a solution in this thread. Without the anti-government libertarian crap, if you please. The problem is not that the system exists, but that its design is flawed and the employees are corrupt and incompetent.
It sounds like you are a liberal, if we are wanting to use labels. I think libertarianism is liberalism, with the added caveat that the state should be minimized or abolished to support "free will," and other changes.
As far as the solution, I don't know.
There is no solution. Stop worrying about it and go have some fun.
Quote from: Idem on May 03, 2010, 03:22:50 PM
I think libertarianism is liberalism,
Franklin, Madison, and Jefferson disagree. But what did they know?
No really Roger, libertarians are so inherently right that good ideas that don't fit their model get renamed as something else but with libertarian in the title (no shit, I'm a 'small l libertarian' according to them. I have no clue what that means though).
Edit: I need more caffeine :oops:
Quote from: Requia ☣ on May 03, 2010, 06:25:59 PM
No really Rodger, libertarians are so inherently right that good ideas that don't fit their model get renamed as something else but with libertarian in the title (no shit, I'm a 'small l libertarian' according to them. I have no clue what that means though).
:lol:
Also, there's no room for a d in my name.
Dok,
Small Roger
Quote from: CAPTAIN SLACK on May 03, 2010, 02:01:47 PM
Let's discuss a solution in this thread. Without the anti-government libertarian crap, if you please. The problem is not that the system exists, but that its design is flawed and the employees are corrupt and incompetent.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on May 03, 2010, 06:25:59 PM
No really Roger, libertarians are so inherently right that good ideas that don't fit their model get renamed as something else but with libertarian in the title (no shit, I'm a 'small l libertarian' according to them. I have no clue what that means though).
Edit: I need more caffeine :oops:
I've been told that too. And then I'm like FUCK YOU, I'M A REPUBLICAN.
They really don't have a comeback for that.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4008/4575710758_ee94f0979d_o.jpg)
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on May 03, 2010, 07:01:51 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on May 03, 2010, 06:25:59 PM
No really Roger, libertarians are so inherently right that good ideas that don't fit their model get renamed as something else but with libertarian in the title (no shit, I'm a 'small l libertarian' according to them. I have no clue what that means though).
Edit: I need more caffeine :oops:
I've been told that too. And then I'm like FUCK YOU, I'M A REPUBLICAN.
They really don't have a comeback for that.
I've discoreved that as long as I accept the small l label i can trash talk Ayn Rand and get away with it, so I'm running with it for now.
it is my understanding that the little l/big L thing is just in reference to the theory v. the Party.
is there something more to it than that?
And now this thread is about libertarianism. Again. :lulz:
there was no way around it with this one.
pink elephant, and all, y'know....
Quote from: Iptuous on May 03, 2010, 07:57:43 PM
there was no way around it with this one.
pink elephant, and all, y'know....
ook.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 03, 2010, 05:47:41 PM
Quote from: Idem on May 03, 2010, 03:22:50 PM
I think libertarianism is liberalism,
Franklin, Madison, and Jefferson disagree. But what did they know?
Jefferson was anti-American anyway. Just ask Texas. I mean, look at the shit he said.
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny"
"Every generation needs a new revolution."
We can't listen to radicals like that.
How do we get both rights and services? In my opinion by devolving as much government function to a local level as possible, and by holding the local fucks accountable (because we actually can)
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 03, 2010, 11:39:50 PM
How do we get both rights and services? In my opinion by devolving as much government function to a local level as possible, and by holding the local fucks accountable (because we actually can)
Congratulations, interracial marriage is now illegal in the south. To a certain extent, you need a strong central gov't to keep the local ones in line.
You know, the Doktor was right about political discussion. I ask for just one thread without libertarianism, and not only do I get libertarian arguments, I also get shoehorned as a liberal.
I'm sure the lot of you will be glad to know that I've come up with my own solution: Nuke em all. Let God sort it out. I'm done with politics.
Quote from: CAPTAIN SLACK on May 04, 2010, 12:28:31 AM
You know, the Doktor was right about political discussion. I ask for just one thread without libertarianism, and not only do I get libertarian arguments, I also get shoehorned as a liberal.
I'm sure the lot of you will be glad to know that I've come up with my own solution: Nuke em all. Let God sort it out. I'm done with politics.
TITCM
Quote from: CAPTAIN SLACK on May 04, 2010, 12:28:31 AM
You know, the Doktor was right about political discussion. I ask for just one thread without libertarianism, and not only do I get libertarian arguments, I also get shoehorned as a liberal.
I'm sure the lot of you will be glad to know that I've come up with my own solution: Nuke em all. Let God sort it out. I'm done with politics.
I knew this was going to end badly. You can't discuss politics
here anywhere without this sort of shit happening.
Quote from: Vene on May 03, 2010, 11:45:09 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 03, 2010, 11:39:50 PM
How do we get both rights and services? In my opinion by devolving as much government function to a local level as possible, and by holding the local fucks accountable (because we actually can)
Congratulations, interracial marriage is now illegal in the south. To a certain extent, you need a strong central gov't to keep the local ones in line.
You need one to a big damn extent. Otherwise you end up with sunset towns and lynchings all over again.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 03, 2010, 11:39:50 PM
How do we get both rights and services? In my opinion by devolving as much government function to a local level as possible, and by holding the local fucks accountable (because we actually can)
Quote from: CAPTAIN SLACK on May 03, 2010, 02:01:47 PM
Let's discuss a solution in this thread. Without the anti-government libertarian crap, if you please. The problem is not that the system exists, but that its design is flawed and the employees are corrupt and incompetent.
Quote from: Hover Cat on May 04, 2010, 01:28:54 AM
Quote from: Vene on May 03, 2010, 11:45:09 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 03, 2010, 11:39:50 PM
How do we get both rights and services? In my opinion by devolving as much government function to a local level as possible, and by holding the local fucks accountable (because we actually can)
Congratulations, interracial marriage is now illegal in the south. To a certain extent, you need a strong central gov't to keep the local ones in line.
You need one to a big damn extent. Otherwise you end up with sunset towns and lynchings all over again.
No, no, Local governments are always best. Like Jasper, Texas.
Or the entire state of Arizona.
Yeah.
Quote from: CAPTAIN SLACK on May 03, 2010, 02:01:47 PM\
Problem: We are losing our rights.
Problem: More than one entity wants to take them away.
Problem: We like our services, though.
Let's discuss a solution in this thread. Without the anti-government libertarian crap, if you please. The problem is not that the system exists, but that its design is flawed and the employees are corrupt and incompetent.
Absolutely demand reform and don't let up until it's done and being enforced. Campaign donation reforms to get corporate claws out of the government, reform lobbies, and reforms and purging of corrupt employees, to start with. The problem here is, is that we'd need massive, long term support to do that and that's never going to happen.
For an actual answer from me:
The real problem with any system of government you propose is that people suck, and the kind of people who want to be in charge, suck more.
We've tried a bunch of different ideas at how to pick the guy in charge, and the pretty much all suck at picking people I'd want to be in charge, but democracy sucks a hell of a lot less than say, monarchy, or picking the guy who can call the most soldiers to fight for him.
Any solution that actually has a better way to pick leaders that suck less is worth considering, but solutions that rely on different policies, but with the same assholes running the show, aren't going to fix anything.
If the political system corrupts everybody who goes through it, I'm wondering what the merits might be of a completely random leader selection process that is repeated every couple years or so. Maybe something like jury duty. I mean, the general public does contain all sorts of schmucks that should probably never be in power, but at least the results should be entertaining.
Wait, why am I even posting this?
Quote from: CAPTAIN SLACK on May 04, 2010, 01:51:39 AM
If the political system corrupts everybody who goes through it, I'm wondering what the merits might be of a completely random leader selection process that is repeated every couple years or so. Maybe something like jury duty. I mean, the general public does contain all sorts of schmucks that should probably never be in power, but at least the results should be entertaining.
Wait, why am I even posting this?
Fucking junkie.
Dok,
Can quit any time he wants.
yes.
a random draft of leadership with the threat of being eaten alive if the fickle masses do not approve of their action.
even if it doesn't work for policy, we'd put a dent in overpopulation....
:lol:
Quote from: CAPTAIN SLACK on May 04, 2010, 01:51:39 AM
If the political system corrupts everybody who goes through it, I'm wondering what the merits might be of a completely random leader selection process that is repeated every couple years or so. Maybe something like jury duty. I mean, the general public does contain all sorts of schmucks that should probably never be in power, but at least the results should be entertaining.
Wait, why am I even posting this?
Oh my god
Focus group governance
I love it!
A few disconnected thoughts:
- People who feel most passionately about an issue are more likely to vote relative to that issue, and indeed more likely to vote at all.
- The successful strategy to get any given measure passed (or defeated) is to get the people all worked up about it, to the level of "this is a struggle for survival/freedom/way of life/core values" and demonizing the opposition as the Other.
- The above environment, with everyone on every side convinced that this is an existential struggle, is not conducive to compromise, reasonable solutions, or social stability.
- People don't vote for politicians, they vote for who they perceive politicians to be. So it's just as effective to get better branding, advertising, and public image management as it is to actually get a better class of politician, and the former can be accomplished with money, while the latter takes real character, which is much harder to come by.
- Branding, advertising, and public image management make a candidate more electable, but not better at drafting and passing good laws.
Quote from: CAPTAIN SLACK on May 04, 2010, 01:51:39 AM
If the political system corrupts everybody who goes through it, I'm wondering what the merits might be of a completely random leader selection process that is repeated every couple years or so. Maybe something like jury duty. I mean, the general public does contain all sorts of schmucks that should probably never be in power, but at least the results should be entertaining.
Wait, why am I even posting this?
the greeks experimented with a system in which the senators would be chosen by lottery.
They thought that elections tend to select a certain type of people, and that group of people can't possibly represent the general pubic. Maybe it's better to have a random sampling of elected leaders, thereby ensuring that the government is a reflection of the populace.
The consequence was that that even your idiot neighbor could get elected - you know, the guy who you don't trust to drive a car, let alone make high-impact societally affecting decisions? So they tossed out that one.
Quote from: Cramulus on May 04, 2010, 05:59:38 PM
and that group of people can't possibly represent the general pubic.
Hee hee hee!
Yes, I'm 13 on the inside. WHAT.
Maybe a mixture of lottery and approval voting would work.
Get a crowd of lottery-picked citizens, say fifty. Some won't want to campaign. Keep replacing the unwilling until you have 50 willing candidates.
Give them each a wad of cash and an advisor to help them put together and run a campaign.
Have a partial approval vote where everyone chooses the 25 they want most.
Put them all together and have each of them perform approval votes on each bill.
To enforce non-corruption, they are kept in nice accommodations, taken care of, provided for, and granted a sizable stipend after their term. Corporate lobbyists must go through the voting public to have their interests advanced.
I call it "Jesus Christ, what does a fucker have to do for some representation around here?"
Quote from: Vene on May 03, 2010, 11:45:09 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 03, 2010, 11:39:50 PM
How do we get both rights and services? In my opinion by devolving as much government function to a local level as possible, and by holding the local fucks accountable (because we actually can)
Congratulations, interracial marriage is now illegal in the south. To a certain extent, you need a strong central gov't to keep the local ones in line.
So if you are an interracial couple you move. And probably not all that far even. Although some parts of the south would be redneck cracker heaven, other parts would be all black and other parts would be a mix. Yes, there would be areas of injustice, but as it is instead of keeping their injustice confined to their own areas the assholes push it onto a national level.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 04, 2010, 08:56:05 PM
Quote from: Vene on May 03, 2010, 11:45:09 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 03, 2010, 11:39:50 PM
How do we get both rights and services? In my opinion by devolving as much government function to a local level as possible, and by holding the local fucks accountable (because we actually can)
Congratulations, interracial marriage is now illegal in the south. To a certain extent, you need a strong central gov't to keep the local ones in line.
So if you are an interracial couple you move. And probably not all that far even. Although some parts of the south would be redneck cracker heaven, other parts would be all black and other parts would be a mix. Yes, there would be areas of injustice, but as it is instead of keeping their injustice confined to their own areas the assholes push it onto a national level.
BACK TO 1966! WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 04, 2010, 01:30:31 AM
Quote from: Hover Cat on May 04, 2010, 01:28:54 AM
Quote from: Vene on May 03, 2010, 11:45:09 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 03, 2010, 11:39:50 PM
How do we get both rights and services? In my opinion by devolving as much government function to a local level as possible, and by holding the local fucks accountable (because we actually can)
Congratulations, interracial marriage is now illegal in the south. To a certain extent, you need a strong central gov't to keep the local ones in line.
You need one to a big damn extent. Otherwise you end up with sunset towns and lynchings all over again.
No, no, Local governments are always best. Like Jasper, Texas.
Or the entire state of Arizona.
Yeah.
Arizona is not local.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 04, 2010, 08:57:20 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 04, 2010, 01:30:31 AM
Quote from: Hover Cat on May 04, 2010, 01:28:54 AM
Quote from: Vene on May 03, 2010, 11:45:09 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 03, 2010, 11:39:50 PM
How do we get both rights and services? In my opinion by devolving as much government function to a local level as possible, and by holding the local fucks accountable (because we actually can)
Congratulations, interracial marriage is now illegal in the south. To a certain extent, you need a strong central gov't to keep the local ones in line.
You need one to a big damn extent. Otherwise you end up with sunset towns and lynchings all over again.
No, no, Local governments are always best. Like Jasper, Texas.
Or the entire state of Arizona.
Yeah.
Arizona is not local.
Okay, Maricopa County.
This is awesome. So the argument is that it's okay to locally take peoples' rights away.
Because everyone can just pick up and move if they don't like it.
Good thing I'm not a junkie or anything.
I CAN QUIT POLITICS ANY TIME I WANT. :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 04, 2010, 08:59:14 PM
This is awesome. So the argument is that it's okay to locally take peoples' rights away.
Because everyone can just pick up and move if they don't like it.
Easier to change counties than to change states, or countries.
Basically my assumption is that there are enough people out there set on taking away other people's rights that they are going to do it, no matter what and I'd rather they do it in their locality rather than the whole state, or the whole country.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 04, 2010, 09:06:42 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 04, 2010, 08:59:14 PM
This is awesome. So the argument is that it's okay to locally take peoples' rights away.
Because everyone can just pick up and move if they don't like it.
Easier to change counties than to change states, or countries.
Basically my assumption is that there are enough people out there set on taking away other people's rights that they are going to do it, no matter what and I'd rather they do it in their locality rather than the whole state, or the whole country.
So if you're too poor to move, you have no actual rights at all.
That's awesome.
Hilarious part about this is why already tried decentralized government (google "articles of confederation"). It didn't work for shit, by why NOT commit to a failed ideology?
:lulz:
So you have a house, kids, you're invested in your area, and the laws change, so you should sell your house (what happens when there's a recession and your loan is upside-down, dumbass?) uproot your family, and go somewhere else?
BRILLIANT system. Great Social Justice, there.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on May 04, 2010, 09:34:29 PM
So you have a house, kids, you're invested in your area, and the laws change, so you should sell your house (what happens when there's a recession and your loan is upside-down, dumbass?) uproot your family, and go somewhere else?
BRILLIANT system. Great Social Justice, there.
No amount of logical contortions and ruined lives can be allowed to stand between us and The Perfect Ideology™.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on May 04, 2010, 09:34:29 PM
So you have a house, kids, you're invested in your area, and the laws change, so you should sell your house (what happens when there's a recession and your loan is upside-down, dumbass?) uproot your family, and go somewhere else?
BRILLIANT system. Great Social Justice, there.
Or you could work to change the laws back. Which is going to be a lot easier if they are local then if they are state laws, or federal laws.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 04, 2010, 09:57:00 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on May 04, 2010, 09:34:29 PM
So you have a house, kids, you're invested in your area, and the laws change, so you should sell your house (what happens when there's a recession and your loan is upside-down, dumbass?) uproot your family, and go somewhere else?
BRILLIANT system. Great Social Justice, there.
Or you could work to change the laws back. Which is going to be a lot easier if they are local then if they are state laws, or federal laws.
"Sorry, we decided you don't get to vote in this county."
You are bringing up problems with any system and applying them specifically to mine, yes, people are shitty and will do bad things to people. it's easier to get people to be less shitty if you are dealing with people that you know and live close to, and who number in the thousands, than it is to get people to be less shitty when they live thousands of miles away and number in the millions and you don't know anything about them.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 04, 2010, 10:03:29 PM
You are bringing up problems with any system and applying them specifically to mine, yes, people are shitty and will do bad things to people. it's easier to get people to be less shitty if you are dealing with people that you know and live close to, and who number in the thousands, than it is to get people to be less shitty when they live thousands of miles away and number in the millions and you don't know anything about them.
Tell it to James Byrd.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Byrd,_Jr.
Also, since when is not being able to vote or interracially marry a problem with any system?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 04, 2010, 10:08:55 PM
Also, since when is not being able to vote or interracially marry a problem with any system?
Well, thos are both problems that existed under the current system at one point. And they wern't solved by the federal government imposing fairness, it did that after people at the local level fought hard to imrpove things and point out the injustices.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 04, 2010, 10:16:05 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 04, 2010, 10:08:55 PM
Also, since when is not being able to vote or interracially marry a problem with any system?
Well, thos are both problems that existed under the current system at one point. And they wern't solved by the federal government imposing fairness, it did that after people at the local level fought hard to imrpove things and point out the injustices.
So you wish me to trade back down to those days?
And they fucking WERE solved by imposed fairness at the federal level. The Loving Decision (Scotus) in regard to the interracial marriage thing, and the Voter Registration Act, both supported by amendment XIV.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 04, 2010, 10:16:05 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 04, 2010, 10:08:55 PM
Also, since when is not being able to vote or interracially marry a problem with any system?
Well, thos are both problems that existed under the current system at one point. And they wern't solved by the federal government imposing fairness, it did that after people at the local level fought hard to imrpove things and point out the injustices.
ORLY? :lulz:
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on May 04, 2010, 10:21:49 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 04, 2010, 10:16:05 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 04, 2010, 10:08:55 PM
Also, since when is not being able to vote or interracially marry a problem with any system?
Well, thos are both problems that existed under the current system at one point. And they wern't solved by the federal government imposing fairness, it did that after people at the local level fought hard to imrpove things and point out the injustices.
ORLY? :lulz:
And it was very brave of those Little Rock citizens to oppose the military's attempt to keep those Black kids out of a White school.
:lulz:
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 04, 2010, 10:16:05 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 04, 2010, 10:08:55 PM
Also, since when is not being able to vote or interracially marry a problem with any system?
Well, thos are both problems that existed under the current system at one point. And they wern't solved by the federal government imposing fairness, it did that after people at the local level fought hard to imrpove things and point out the injustices.
Please research the Civil Rights movement. People who were trying to change things at the local level were lynched, beaten, murdered, raped, and otherwise assaulted because of it. It took a lot of upward pressure to get it, but federal help was required to get quite a lot of the stuff you and I take for granted (integrated schools, legalization of interracial marriage, anti-lynching laws, justice for murdered civil rights agitators, etc.).
And anyway, if you were to apply your idea to the present day, the long term, ingrained effects of the way our country used to be are STILL here. The ones most likely to suffer under that system have no money to move
with.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 04, 2010, 10:33:13 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on May 04, 2010, 10:21:49 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 04, 2010, 10:16:05 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 04, 2010, 10:08:55 PM
Also, since when is not being able to vote or interracially marry a problem with any system?
Well, thos are both problems that existed under the current system at one point. And they wern't solved by the federal government imposing fairness, it did that after people at the local level fought hard to imrpove things and point out the injustices.
ORLY? :lulz:
And it was very brave of those Little Rock citizens to oppose the military's attempt to keep those Black kids out of a White school.
:lulz:
Someone is trying to argue a history they aren't very familiar with...
The racial equality thing was done top-down, but other big changes have been bottom up, if individual states and territories* hadn't had the the ability to give women the right to vote, it would have taken far longer to push that through at a federal level, and even if the ammendment had gone though on the same day, it would have cut off all the women in the places that did push it through ahead of that.
*Territories lost this, cause the feds didn't like it, but it started in places that weren't yet states.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on May 05, 2010, 06:28:25 AM
The racial equality thing was done top-down, but other big changes have been bottom up, if individual states and territories* hadn't had the the ability to give women the right to vote, it would have taken far longer to push that through at a federal level, and even if the ammendment had gone though on the same day, it would have cut off all the women in the places that did push it through ahead of that.
*Territories lost this, cause the feds didn't like it, but it started in places that weren't yet states.
Which says to me that going either giving the federal government lots of power or giving the local government lots of power is a false dichotomy. Give the states (or counties) too much power and you'll wind up with massive inequalities within one country, but if you give the central government too much power then you no longer have the chance for grassroots movements to pop up and change things for the better.
Or, to throw out something slightly related, we're too big for our own damn good. Maybe once a government gets to be too large it can't effectively put forth laws and such that apply for the entire nation. But, this is the kind of thought that pops into my head at one in the am so I can't guarantee it has any bearing on reality.
How about the system we have right now, except more social benefits and more regulation on individuals and corporations that wield massive power?
Different policies, same assholes running the show.
But
Quote from: Requia ☣ on May 06, 2010, 05:05:51 AM
Different policies, same assholes running the show.
As things stand we are actively tolerating the current system. That says to me that any improvements to the current, eminently tolerable system would make it more tolerable.
Just saying.
For the more social benefits bit, maybe, the government likes to screw those up in truly unimaginable ways, but they do sometimes work.
For more corporate regulation, more regulation on people in power. Who the hell is going to enforce those? The same assholes who refused to enforce mercury emission standards until congress relaxed them by a factor of 7. The same assholes who never arrest cops for making illegal searches, even though there's been a law on the books against violation of constitutional rights under color of law since the 70s.
You need to either convince people to elect different assholes (I have no idea how to do this, but it has been done before), or change the system in a way that different assholes end up in charge.
Different policies aren't going to make things worse, but I can't see them making things much better either.
"Right NOW, 4 nypd shitbags walked right past me obviously smoking weed in the park to arrest a homeless guy for sleeping." - @yttrx, via Twitter
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 06, 2010, 05:19:53 AM
But Quote from: Requia ☣ on May 06, 2010, 05:05:51 AM
Different policies, same assholes running the show.
As things stand we are actively tolerating the current system. That says to me that any improvements to the current, eminently tolerable system would make it more tolerable.
Just saying.
Yes.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on May 06, 2010, 05:05:51 AM
Different policies, same assholes running the show.
Assholes will always run the show.
Of course, the question is what kind of assholes are doing it. The current crop of assholes in the federal government are much preferable (to me) than say, President Hayes.
Quote from: Kai on May 06, 2010, 04:44:23 AM
How about the system we have right now, except more social benefits and more regulation on individuals and corporations that wield massive power?
This was the goal of the OP.
Remember people: no anti govt arguments allowed ITT.
I know, it sucks. Think of it as an ARG where the initiation of force is good if done by elected representatives or their servants.
Go play in another playground if you dont want to play this game.
brainstorm:
goals:
- Quality control on the type of asshole that gets power.
- Limits on the amount of power one person or group can accumulate.
-
methods: problems:
- rules and regulations. how do you enforce this without getting stuck in
qui custodiet ipsos custodes?
- culture hacking
- education
- indoctrination/propaganda
-
notes:
We want to make a stable self correcting system, there is no point in creating a system that is sensitive to change.
I think the overall problem with the US government is that it's changed the basic imprint to its state of consciousness (if we consider the US as a memetic entity).
So let's consider the 2 circuit grid idea where First Circuit = Advance/Retreat or seeing the world as Safe/Not Safe. Looking at the intention of the people who designed the US, they appeared to perceive the rest of the nations as equal trade partners (free trade with all, entangling alliances with none). So we might say that they saw the world as a safe place for their new country to interact with. This has changed over the past few centuries and now, not only does the US tend to see all nations as competition, allies or enemies, but it also sees its own citizens as potential enemies. Our national imprint has changed from 'Advance'/'This is a Safe place' to 'Retreat'/'The world is big and scary!'
The second circuit 'Top Dog/Bottom Dog' or 'Dominance/Submission' seems pretty heavily imprinted with the Top Dog/Dominant sort of mindset.
According to the grid then, Retreat/Not Safe + Dominance = Area of Hostile Strength (The Tyrant) I'm ok, you're not ok. I give the orders here!
Whereas the original intent Advance/Safe + Dominance = Area of Friendly Strength (The Good Parent) I'm ok, you're ok. It's safe out here.
It seems to me that a government would do far better internationally and within its own borders if the imprint were more the latter than the former. The arguments of Libertarians and Republicans (for small government) and Democrats and Liberals (for useful government) all seem to boil down to this singular issue.
Small Gov. - We can't trust the government, because the government will screw us when it gets the chance... besides, I don't want it telling me what to do about everything in my life.
The small government proponents are fighting the 'Tyrant' imprint. The Libertarian is fighting the 'Hostile Strength' of the government.
Useful Gov. - The government should be helping people, supporting its citizens in any way that it can.
The useful government types are pushing for Friendly Strength, where the government says to its citizens "I'm OK, you're OK, let's work together".
So the issue lies in the mindset of the memetic entity (ie the mindset of all Americans on the concept of Government). The more afraid the individual Americans are of the 'world' (and of their own terrorized home), the more of a Tyrant the government becomes (its not safe, we must be safe!). The more of a tyrant the government becomes, the less the people can trust it... meaning that they become more afraid of the government and the government responds to that fear, by becoming more afraid of its citizens and acting in a more tyrannical fashion.
Until the government can be changed from an entity that is imprinted with Hostile Strength, things will not change.
Of course, there are a lot of other moving parts in a government and this isn't the only issue, but it seems to be a key cause of many issues. The Drug War, The War on Terror, Universal Healthcare, Taxes, etc etc etc all seem to be prone to flaws predicated on the government being scared and dominant in its behavior.
Quote from: Regret on May 19, 2010, 12:23:37 PM
Quote from: Kai on May 06, 2010, 04:44:23 AM
How about the system we have right now, except more social benefits and more regulation on individuals and corporations that wield massive power?
This was the goal of the OP.
Remember people: no anti govt arguments allowed ITT.
I know, it sucks. Think of it as an ARG where the initiation of force is good if done by elected representatives or their servants.
Go play in another playground if you dont want to play this game.
brainstorm:
goals:
- Quality control on the type of asshole that gets power.
- Limits on the amount of power one person or group can accumulate.
-
methods: problems:
- rules and regulations. how do you enforce this without getting stuck in qui custodiet ipsos custodes?
- culture hacking
- education
- indoctrination/propaganda
-
notes:
We want to make a stable self correcting system, there is no point in creating a system that is sensitive to change.
Maybe some tinkering to make things less two party? instant runoff voting is one option, or a system where voters vote for the party instead of the candidate, and parties get whatever percent of the popular vote as their percentage of representatives.
I wasn't thinking of a two party system specifically.
Go look up the different ways other countries depolarize politics.
We don't have to do everything ourselves :P
Quote from: Regret on May 20, 2010, 12:56:00 PM
I wasn't thinking of a two party system specifically.
Go look up the different ways other countries depolarize politics.
We don't have to do everything ourselves :P
I'm a fan of the German system actually. They don't allow one party to have a majority. They also have a pretty decent economy, fairly good social services, and more freedom than we do in most respects.
Quote from: CAPTAIN SLACK on May 03, 2010, 02:01:47 PM
I like my rights. I like rights, and I think we should all have a lot of them. For this, the current political system would call me a libertarian.
This is a problem. I've seen libertarian arguments, and I don't agree with any of them. Sure, freedom is nice, but is the shrinking of government really the answer? It seems that the current libertarian school of thought is based on a false dichotomy: the only answer to problems involving authority is to either shrink or increase government. This just doesn't make sense to me.
I don't think anybody here likes corporations any more than I do. I don' t think any of us want corporations to have any more power over us than they already do. Now, I won't say that the government as it is is doing a good job of keeping them in check, but at least there are some laws in place to hold CEOs accountable for their actions. Personally, I think it makes sense to pass a set of laws placing greater restriction on powerful corporations and what they can do. This is one example of how increased government can be applied in a positive manner.
Another reason not to decrease government in its totality is simple, and Doktor Howl brought it up recently in another thread: Services.
Roads. Running water. Electricity. A public education system(as horribly incompetent as its employees are). I could go on.
Problem: We are losing our rights.
Problem: More than one entity wants to take them away.
Problem: We like our services, though.
Let's discuss a solution in this thread. Without the anti-government libertarian crap, if you please. The problem is not that the system exists, but that its design is flawed and the employees are corrupt and incompetent.
This is why I'm a Libertarian Socialist: "Burn it ALL down," I say.
No seriously: seriously limit the powers of central banks and governments, give The People domain over corporations and handle all the fuckups and socialized needs on a local level.
The federal government's job is to bomb the shit out of nazis and Koreans, build interstates and aircraft carriers and to make sure no one's hanging niggers or burning the jews or arresting the guests at my abortion tupperware party. Other than that, I'd really like it if they'd fuck off and let me do drugs, shoot guns, doctor-shop and marry queers in peace.
Quote from: navkat on May 21, 2010, 04:42:49 AM
This is why I'm a Libertarian Socialist: "Burn it ALL down," I say.
No seriously: seriously limit the powers of central banks and governments, give The People domain over corporations and handle all the fuckups and socialized needs on a local level.
Amen. Except I don't call myself a Libertarian Socialist. I'm more of a libertarian (little l here) conservative. Sure, regulate banks and utilities. That's good. Even provide public education. That's pretty much necessary. But social security? Universal health care? How can you compromise libertarianism and socialism? Socialism is, in essence, huge government that takes your money and gives you "free" shit. I'd prefer a tiny government that lets me keep my money and allows me to go without such services if I don't want 'em. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the term "Libertarian Socialist."
Quote from: navkat on May 21, 2010, 04:42:49 AM
The federal government's job is to bomb the shit out of nazis and Koreans, build interstates and aircraft carriers and to make sure no one's hanging niggers or burning the jews or arresting the guests at my abortion tupperware party. Other than that, I'd really like it if they'd fuck off and let me do drugs, shoot guns, doctor-shop and marry queers in peace.
Incidentally, while the federal government should certainly be in charge of the military (I'd rather not have that
completely in the hands of a corporation /shudder), I'm of the belief that bombing Koreans and Nazis is secondary to the security of people within our nation. We need to get our own shit in line before we fuck other countries' shit up. Not to mention, the whole
Democracy, Or Else concept is just a little ironic.
So what does that make me? A libertarian isolationist commercialist? I'm not sure, either.
Oh, and before I forget, the whole "Sue anyone who you possibly can" thing needs to go away. Fuck that. Suck it up. Its just a little bit of coffee in your lap, of course the fucking coffee is hot. You're obviously just greedy and lazy, and therefore looking for any excuse to make your problems someone elses' and capitalize on it.
[/rant]
- DeadLucky
Oh, also, I'm new here. Hi.
They don't take your money to give you free shit.
They take your money to help support the very system that allowed you to make that money in the first place.
If the US were socialist, I still haven't gone to a doctor in a while, and the healthcare system certainly wouldn't be supporting me. I don't need it. I've made my money without it. I also have made my money without receiving any unemployment, disability, welfare, or social security checks. I don't expect to ever get any money in such a manner from the government.
Incidentally, my taxes pay for such programs, however. Its all shit, and it is free for the end user.
No offence to those who are reliant upon such programs, but I consider myself a little to good to be begging for scraps from the table of wealth and excesses. Call it a Greyfaced attitude of snobbery if you must. The American Dream is no longer to go from poverty or wealth, but to collect unemployment whilst working under the table, yet spending excessive amounts of money on expensive flashy rims and plasma screen televisions and stay in poverty.
Now, if you're talking about taking my money for infrastructure, police, education, the military, you're making sense. However, that's not what I'm concerned about.
- DeadLucky
Well, personally, I actually give a shit about my fellow human beings, and I understand that our society is made up of the haves and the have-nots; and where the have-nots are not just screwed over daily, they are actively prevented from succeeding.
So, you can take your vaguely racist economic theories and cram them up your ass.
There was no racism involved, I assure you. Ethnicity wasn't even in my thoughts, in fact, I thought I was describing typical "White Trash." Perhaps you should look at whatever prejudices made you jump to that conclusion, hmm?
And my ass is full of other things I'm crammed there. Like witty sayings, poop, and occasionally remotes after I got really annoyed at World of Warcraft.
Incidentally, I do also care about my fellow human beings. I just don't think that giving people money for doing nothing encourages people to acquire and hold down jobs.
- DeadLucky
You're right. Better to let them and their children starve to death.
After all, they deserve it for being so lazy they can't find jobs, right?
you're too good to be "begging for scraps" -- that's rich.
you could get the ax at any time, man
your life could be instantly and completely transformed by an accident, a death, a promotion, any number of black swans
you may not be able to find work afterwards. Would you be too proud to beg for scraps then? When the cupboard is full of ramen noodles and the student loan collectors ring you three times a day?
I have to admit to a little offense at this characterization. I am a competent, intelligent, college educated young professional. In January 2009, my company cut my hours -- not because of anything I'd done, but because like many companies in 2009, we were bleeding money. And the low level employees are always the most expendable. So they saved somebody else's job by demoting me to part time and taking away my benefits.
I collected part-time unemployment while I looked for full time work. And you know what? there was dick out there. I couldn't find work. Not because I was lazy, there just weren't any jobs for me. Your application sits in a stack with 300+ other people's applications. You get so excited when somebody actually calls you in for an interview, you put on your best suit, your best self, and then you find out they're interviewing 13 people for the same position that day.
So I could have probably gotten a shitty job working in retail or food service, but shit - I'm a 28 year old college grad. I'd be making the same pay in a whole week as I used to in 2 or 3 days. Once you go down that hill, it's really hard to climb back up. Instead I got some unemployment to get me through the hard times, and now that the economy has relaxed a bit, my company hired me back full time. So for me, the story has a happy ending. But it didn't for a lot of people.
I don't begrudge people for not having a job when there's no jobs to go around. It's not a measure of skill or worth. We are trapped in the belly of the beast, and the beast is bleeding to death.
Quote from: DeadLucky on May 24, 2010, 12:23:47 PM
Oh, and before I forget, the whole "Sue anyone who you possibly can" thing needs to go away. Fuck that. Suck it up. Its just a little bit of coffee in your lap, of course the fucking coffee is hot. You're obviously just greedy and lazy, and therefore looking for any excuse to make your problems someone elses' and capitalize on it.
Actually, that case was a pretty good example of when you're supposed to sue.
"Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin as she sat in the puddle of hot liquid for over 90 seconds, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin. Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds. Two years of medical treatment followed." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants)
Frivolous lawsuits may exist, but that ain't one of them.
Quote from: DeadLucky on May 24, 2010, 04:42:14 PM
There was no racism involved, I assure you. Ethnicity wasn't even in my thoughts, in fact, I thought I was describing typical "White Trash." Perhaps you should look at whatever prejudices made you jump to that conclusion, hmm?
And my ass is full of other things I'm crammed there. Like witty sayings, poop, and occasionally remotes after I got really annoyed at World of Warcraft.
Incidentally, I do also care about my fellow human beings. I just don't think that giving people money for doing nothing encourages people to acquire and hold down jobs.
- DeadLucky
Yeah, fuck off.
I'm a college graduate who has been looking for work in the past year, living with the girlfriend in Minnesota who is on disability. We eat only because I got on food stamps. Is her completely unpredictable sleep cycle is a result of her being lazy? As in, one day she could be asleep from 10p to 8a the next it could be from 4a to 4p. Kind of hard to keep a job when you can't schedule anything. Or, wait, I'm the lazy one, right? Despite applying for jobs every day, despite looking for jobs outside of my field and looking for local, part time work. Right? You just said that I should roll over and die. You just said that she should roll over and die.
Oh, by the way, that whole thing with social security, do you know the average amount of time somebody is on disability? 5 years. That's it, then they go back to work. Unless you're also trying to say that retirees should also go back to work or starve? You do know history, right? You do realize that's a big part of why it was implemented, right? It was because the elderly were unable to work anymore, but without any means of income, they died horrible deaths. Social security prevents this from happening.
Christ, I heard enough about death panels during the health care debate, but, seriously, it's the attitude like this that actually
did sentence grandma to death.
Quote from: DeadLucky on May 24, 2010, 04:42:14 PM
Incidentally, I do also care about my fellow human beings. I just don't think that giving people money for doing nothing encourages people to acquire and hold down jobs.
- DeadLucky
I think that this is an inaccurate oversimplification.
At any rate, to respond to the thread in general, I've noticed that there seems to be this sort of you can have more rights and less services or more services and less rights. I think that's a false correlation. I'm no Swede and I've never been to Sweden, but I'm under the impression that they have both a lot of rights and a lot of services. I might be missing something here, but I don't think being taxed is a violation of my rights.
As for how to improve things? Here are some of my suggestions:
-Feel free to blame politicians (as long as its the right politicians), that's fine and they are part of it. But remember that their job is to enact policy, not enforce it. Hold the beauracracy to be more accountable, and make it more efficient. No need to shrink or grow government if the beauracracy is working smoothly. More bang for your buck.
-The people who do vote usually vote for a party, not a candidate. This, I think, is true of independents as well, it's just which party is switchable depending on political climate. So, get rid of primaries. Have a wider selection of candidates and then have each ballot rank them in order of preference (drawback-requires the average person to keep track of multiple candidates and issues). Make elections a holiday so that a greater amount of people get the day off and can go out and vote. Set aside a certain amount of tax money for each candidate to campaign with and that's all they can use. Takes the corporations out, allows someone to run regardless of economic status, and provides equal footing for all candidates.
-Stronger multi-party system. The Democrat-Republican thing isn't enough, and it seems like the average person will pick their party depending on how they feel about abortion, guns, and occasionally the death penalty. People need to see that there is a wider spectrum and its not just a this-or-that sort of thing. I'm not a Democrat but I'll generally vote for one over a Republican if I only have two choices, since they are closer (but not by much) to my politics. Anyway, there are sub-parties in both the Democratic and Republican Parties. Politics shouldn't be dumbed down. If you dumb down shit, people will get used to dumbed down shit and not think about it.
Quote from: Vene on May 24, 2010, 05:29:01 PM
Quote from: DeadLucky on May 24, 2010, 12:23:47 PM
Oh, and before I forget, the whole "Sue anyone who you possibly can" thing needs to go away. Fuck that. Suck it up. Its just a little bit of coffee in your lap, of course the fucking coffee is hot. You're obviously just greedy and lazy, and therefore looking for any excuse to make your problems someone elses' and capitalize on it.
Actually, that case was a pretty good example of when you're supposed to sue.
"Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin as she sat in the puddle of hot liquid for over 90 seconds, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin. Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds. Two years of medical treatment followed." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants)
Frivolous lawsuits may exist, but that ain't one of them.
The injury wasn't the reason McDonalds was liable. The policy that franchises must serve coffee at 180F (as opposed to a more normal 140) is why they were found liable. A liquid at 180F will cause 3rd degree burns in 12-15 seconds according to the defense. The defense then claimed that coffee should be served at 140F which would not cause such burns as quickly, giving the victim time to remove the coffee from the skin... The jury bought it.
Later, it was determined that most coffee at many establishments (and home coffee pots) produce and keep coffee at about 180F. The British suit filed later (based on the success of the American one) failed, because the claims made in the US one were questionable.
Personally, I think that if you spill HOT liquid on yourself, you're at fault. In the case of the woman at McDonalds, she was taking the lid off after sticking the cup between her knees. I don't think companies should be liable for stupidity, no matter how much damage may occur.
If the spill had been caused by a faulty cup or lid then it would be McDonalds fault, which is pretty much what the later UK suit determined.
Also the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in the US ruled against the claim that 180F is too hot for coffee. (Which I know only cause Wikipedia says so...)
Lawsuits against companies should be valid in cases of negligence, intentional or unintentional. There is nothing that indicates McDonalds was negligent in the coffee case, they brewed the coffee to a widely accepted standard temperature and served it in a safe cup.
---------------------------
As for the overall discussion... I agree with Twiddleton in the debate of Services vs Freedoms. A government that operated from a "I'm OK, You're OK' paradigm should be able to maximize both. However, as I stated before, we have a government which often sees its citizens as the enemy. In that sort of environment, the government will have no problem reducing freedoms and providing half-assed services.
The flaw lies not in the Libertarian vs Socialism philosophies of government, but in the most basic philosophy of government rule... why does the government exist, to serve the people or to rule the people? The US, notwithstanding Lincoln's awesome speech... falls into the latter. Socialism could be accomplished without the sacrifice of rights and freedoms, but only with a government that works from the service paradigm.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on May 24, 2010, 05:45:41 PM-Stronger multi-party system. The Democrat-Republican thing isn't enough, and it seems like the average person will pick their party depending on how they feel about abortion, guns, and occasionally the death penalty. People need to see that there is a wider spectrum and its not just a this-or-that sort of thing. I'm not a Democrat but I'll generally vote for one over a Republican if I only have two choices, since they are closer (but not by much) to my politics. Anyway, there are sub-parties in both the Democratic and Republican Parties. Politics shouldn't be dumbed down. If you dumb down shit, people will get used to dumbed down shit and not think about it.
This is why I like how Denmark does it.
For their parliament, the citizens vote for a candidate depending on their constituency, but not all seats are selected this way. Of the 179 seats, there is only direct representation for 139 of them. The remaining 40 are selected according to the proportion of the vote that went to the various parties (as long as the party got a minimum of 2% of the vote). So, like, if we're going to use our system, if the green party got 10% of the national vote, but no seats, they get 18 of those seats. The reason I like this is it makes it so that parties other than the big two matter and minorities that normally get no say in things have at least some representation, not lesser of two evils, actual representation.
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 24, 2010, 05:51:34 PM
Socialism could be accomplished without the sacrifice of rights and freedoms, but only with a government that works from the service paradigm.
That sounds a bit like social democracy, at least, to me. I could be reading things into it that aren't there.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy#IdeologyIn general, contemporary social democrats support:
* A mixed economy consisting of both private enterprise and publicly owned or subsidized programs of education, universal health care, child care and related social services for all citizens.
* An extensive system of social security (although usually not to the extent advocated by socialists), with the stated goal of counteracting the effects of poverty and insuring the citizens against loss of income following illness, unemployment or retirement.
* Government bodies that regulate private enterprise in the interests of workers and consumers by ensuring labor rights (i.e. supporting worker access to trade unions), consumer protections, and fair market competition.
* Environmentalism and environmental protection laws; for example, funding for alternative energy resources and laws designed to combat global warming.
* A value-added/progressive taxation system to fund government expenditures.
* A secular and a socially progressive policy.
* Immigration and multiculturalism.
* Youth rights and lowering the voting age.
* Fair trade over free trade.
* A foreign policy supporting the promotion of democracy, the protection of human rights and where possible, effective multilateralism.
* Advocacy of social justice, human rights, social rights, civil rights and civil liberties.
Quote from: Vene on May 24, 2010, 05:57:07 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 24, 2010, 05:51:34 PM
Socialism could be accomplished without the sacrifice of rights and freedoms, but only with a government that works from the service paradigm.
That sounds a bit like social democracy, at least, to me. I could be reading things into it that aren't there.
I think its something more fundamental that a political philosophy. A political philosophy is a series of ideas that a government or party would like... its their Brass Ring. What I'm thinking about lies deeper, at the heart of how government and people perceive each other.
http://deoxy.org/raw1.htm
On that chart, we'd need to see a government (and more importantly its populace) sitting in the upper right quadrant. The US Government (generally) seems to operate from the upper left quadrant while the populace seems split between the two lower quadrants (perhaps more anti-government thought on the lower left and pro-government thought on the lower right).
Quote from: Vene on May 24, 2010, 05:57:07 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 24, 2010, 05:51:34 PM
Socialism could be accomplished without the sacrifice of rights and freedoms, but only with a government that works from the service paradigm.
That sounds a bit like social democracy, at least, to me. I could be reading things into it that aren't there.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy#IdeologyIn general, contemporary social democrats support:
* A mixed economy consisting of both private enterprise and publicly owned or subsidized programs of education, universal health care, child care and related social services for all citizens.
* An extensive system of social security (although usually not to the extent advocated by socialists), with the stated goal of counteracting the effects of poverty and insuring the citizens against loss of income following illness, unemployment or retirement.
* Government bodies that regulate private enterprise in the interests of workers and consumers by ensuring labor rights (i.e. supporting worker access to trade unions), consumer protections, and fair market competition.
* Environmentalism and environmental protection laws; for example, funding for alternative energy resources and laws designed to combat global warming.
* A value-added/progressive taxation system to fund government expenditures.
* A secular and a socially progressive policy.
* Immigration and multiculturalism.
* Youth rights and lowering the voting age.
* Fair trade over free trade.
* A foreign policy supporting the promotion of democracy, the protection of human rights and where possible, effective multilateralism.
* Advocacy of social justice, human rights, social rights, civil rights and civil liberties.
Anything left of the Democrats is considered socialism here. Depending on who you ask these days anything left of Republicans is socialism here. The word is used like a boogie man. Socialism is thrown around here in such a vague way that it doesn't really mean anything other than, "we can't have this 'radical' try to provide us with health-care" But the things you list here would be considered part of a socialist platform. Out of curiousity, what do they recommend lowering the voting age to? It's 18 in the US.
Edit: Realizing though, that Ratatosk isn't using the word in the vague sort of fnord way.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on May 24, 2010, 06:12:01 PM
Anything left of the Democrats is considered socialism here. Depending on who you ask these days anything left of Republicans is socialism here. The word is used like a boogie man. Socialism is thrown around here in such a vague way that it doesn't really mean anything other than, "we can't have this 'radical' try to provide us with health-care" But the things you list here would be considered part of a socialist platform. Out of curiousity, what do they recommend lowering the voting age to? It's 18 in the US.
Edit: Realizing though, that Ratatosk isn't using the word in the vague sort of fnord way.
Heh, I'm from "here," I know this is way too far left to be viable (hell, it's
is a form of socialism). I'm not exactly sure what age is considered good enough for voting rights. I'm actually okay with 18, mostly because it means there's a good chance the voters are high school graduates. I do know that the voting age in the US wasn't always 18, but I don't think I could support a voting age of 21.
And Rat, it does sound like I read too much into it, and that chart is, at the least, a different way of thinking about things. But, I'm not sure if works because there's no interdependence model. Well, maybe friendly strength could be interpreted that way, I'm not sure.
Quote from: Vene on May 24, 2010, 06:38:19 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on May 24, 2010, 06:12:01 PM
Anything left of the Democrats is considered socialism here. Depending on who you ask these days anything left of Republicans is socialism here. The word is used like a boogie man. Socialism is thrown around here in such a vague way that it doesn't really mean anything other than, "we can't have this 'radical' try to provide us with health-care" But the things you list here would be considered part of a socialist platform. Out of curiousity, what do they recommend lowering the voting age to? It's 18 in the US.
Edit: Realizing though, that Ratatosk isn't using the word in the vague sort of fnord way.
Heh, I'm from "here," I know this is way too far left to be viable (hell, it's is a form of socialism). I'm not exactly sure what age is considered good enough for voting rights. I'm actually okay with 18, mostly because it means there's a good chance the voters are high school graduates. I do know that the voting age in the US wasn't always 18, but I don't think I could support a voting age of 21.
And Rat, it does sound like I read too much into it, and that chart is, at the least, a different way of thinking about things. But, I'm not sure if works because there's no interdependence model. Well, maybe friendly strength could be interpreted that way, I'm not sure.
Healthy interdependence requires that AT LEAST the Alpha of the pack is in the position of Friendly Strength. There can be an unhealthy interdependence between Hostile Strength and Friendly Weakness, or some really fucked up co-dependent issues between Hostile Strength and Hostlie Weakness. In politics, we can see the former (HS/FW) in scenarios like Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy etc where the people 'supported' the government because they felt incapable (for the germans particularly this was due to the 'bad imprinting' they got post WWI). For examples of the latter (HS,HW), we can look at the conservative groups in the US. For the most part Right Wing politicians operate from a position of Hostile Strength (see War on Drugs, War on Terror, Diminished Civil Liberties etc) AND the people that vote them in operate from a position of Hostile Weakness (OMGZ TEH GOVERNMENT IS EVIL, EXCEPT WHEN GOING AFTER THE STONERS, TOWELHEADS AND WETBACKS!!!!)... they fear the government and elect people that implement laws which create fear of the government.
Quote from: Vene on May 24, 2010, 06:38:19 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on May 24, 2010, 06:12:01 PM
Anything left of the Democrats is considered socialism here. Depending on who you ask these days anything left of Republicans is socialism here. The word is used like a boogie man. Socialism is thrown around here in such a vague way that it doesn't really mean anything other than, "we can't have this 'radical' try to provide us with health-care" But the things you list here would be considered part of a socialist platform. Out of curiousity, what do they recommend lowering the voting age to? It's 18 in the US.
Edit: Realizing though, that Ratatosk isn't using the word in the vague sort of fnord way.
Heh, I'm from "here," I know this is way too far left to be viable (hell, it's is a form of socialism). I'm not exactly sure what age is considered good enough for voting rights. I'm actually okay with 18, mostly because it means there's a good chance the voters are high school graduates. I do know that the voting age in the US wasn't always 18, but I don't think I could support a voting age of 21.
Ah, I must've misread the Denmark thing, I thought you were Danish for a moment. I'm kinda along the same lines as you are as far as voting age. I'm just remembering when I was 16 or so. I would have cheerfully voted but I don't think that my politics were fully formed (certainly not fully informed) at that time.
Don't know if it's not viable, just not viable here yet. People are still very wary of things on that list, though a lot of it just seems very reactionary. And McCain opened up Pandora's Box in a poorly thought attempt intrying to win over a perceived swath of angry Hillary supporters. That's just my opinion though.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on May 24, 2010, 07:15:21 PMAh, I must've misread the Denmark thing, I thought you were Danish for a moment. I'm kinda along the same lines as you are as far as voting age. I'm just remembering when I was 16 or so. I would have cheerfully voted but I don't think that my politics were fully formed (certainly not fully informed) at that time.
Nah, not Danish, but have looked at the place as a possibility for expatriation. Doesn't hurt that I have a few friends from the country.
QuoteDon't know if it's not viable, just not viable here yet. People are still very wary of things on that list, though a lot of it just seems very reactionary. And McCain opened up Pandora's Box in a poorly thought attempt intrying to win over a perceived swath of angry Hillary supporters. That's just my opinion though.
From what I can tell, the platform is viable, mostly because the Scandinavian countries follow that mindset (or something similar) and they have a very high standard of living. I should have clarified to mean that I didn't think it was a viable option in the US.
Quote from: DeadLucky on May 24, 2010, 12:23:47 PM
Quote from: navkat on May 21, 2010, 04:42:49 AM
This is why I'm a Libertarian Socialist: "Burn it ALL down," I say.
No seriously: seriously limit the powers of central banks and governments, give The People domain over corporations and handle all the fuckups and socialized needs on a local level.
Amen. Except I don't call myself a Libertarian Socialist. I'm more of a libertarian (little l here) conservative. Sure, regulate banks and utilities. That's good. Even provide public education. That's pretty much necessary. But social security? Universal health care? How can you compromise libertarianism and socialism? Socialism is, in essence, huge government that takes your money and gives you "free" shit. I'd prefer a tiny government that lets me keep my money and allows me to go without such services if I don't want 'em. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the term "Libertarian Socialist."
Quote from: navkat on May 21, 2010, 04:42:49 AM
The federal government's job is to bomb the shit out of nazis and Koreans, build interstates and aircraft carriers and to make sure no one's hanging niggers or burning the jews or arresting the guests at my abortion tupperware party. Other than that, I'd really like it if they'd fuck off and let me do drugs, shoot guns, doctor-shop and marry queers in peace.
Incidentally, while the federal government should certainly be in charge of the military (I'd rather not have that completely in the hands of a corporation /shudder), I'm of the belief that bombing Koreans and Nazis is secondary to the security of people within our nation. We need to get our own shit in line before we fuck other countries' shit up. Not to mention, the whole Democracy, Or Else concept is just a little ironic.
So what does that make me? A libertarian isolationist commercialist? I'm not sure, either.
Oh, and before I forget, the whole "Sue anyone who you possibly can" thing needs to go away. Fuck that. Suck it up. Its just a little bit of coffee in your lap, of course the fucking coffee is hot. You're obviously just greedy and lazy, and therefore looking for any excuse to make your problems someone elses' and capitalize on it.
[/rant]
- DeadLucky
Oh, also, I'm new here. Hi.
Might want to check out the history of the word libertarian before you start to think that libertarian socialist is a contradiction in terms.
(hint, it's a polite way of saying Anarchist)
Quote from: LMNO on May 24, 2010, 04:44:47 PM
You're right. Better to let them and their children starve to death.
After all, they deserve it for being so lazy they can't find jobs, right?
Meh, you may have a point about the children.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 24, 2010, 10:15:24 PM
(hint, it's a polite way of saying Anarchist)
Small government isn't no government. That's like say that Socailism is a polite way of saying Communism. It isn't.
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 24, 2010, 05:51:34 PM
Quote from: Vene on May 24, 2010, 05:29:01 PM
Frivolous lawsuits may exist, but that ain't one of them.
Personally, I think that if you spill HOT liquid on yourself, you're at fault. In the case of the woman at McDonalds, she was taking the lid off after sticking the cup between her knees. I don't think companies should be liable for stupidity, no matter how much damage may occur. If the spill had been caused by a faulty cup or lid then it would be McDonalds fault, which is pretty much what the later UK suit determined.
Also the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in the US ruled against the claim that 180F is too hot for coffee. (Which I know only cause Wikipedia says so...)
Lawsuits against companies should be valid in cases of negligence, intentional or unintentional. There is nothing that indicates McDonalds was negligent in the coffee case, they brewed the coffee to a widely accepted standard temperature and served it in a safe cup.
Thank you. Quoted for truth, I couldn't say it better.
We all know that bullets, if projected at a high velocity, have the ability to injure someone or something, Even if an ammunition manufacturer failed to tell me not to shoot myself, they wouldn't be negligent if I decided to try to catch a bullet with my hand. Or head. Or foot. Similarly, if hot enough, coffee has the ability to injure someone or something. But even if a coffee seller failed to tell me not to spill it on myself, they wouldn't be negligent if I decided to try to open a cup of coffee in my crotch and burn myself in the ballls. Or legs. Or torso.
Quote from: Vene on May 24, 2010, 05:38:20 PM
Yeah, fuck off.
I'm a college graduate who has been looking for work in the past year, living with the girlfriend in Minnesota who is on disability. We eat only because I got on food stamps.
I'm sorry to hear that. I understand that my comment may have been taken as abrasive and insensitive, and honestly I didn't think about the ramifications of such. I apologize for the brazenness that which I announced sleep-deprived rantings. I didn't mean to insinuate that there are no cases in which such programs are necessary. In fact, I feel that such programs should be available and privately commercial, but perhaps not be mandatory to pay into: i.e. insurance.
Quote from: Cramulus on May 24, 2010, 04:59:29 PM
you're too good to be "begging for scraps" -- that's rich.
you could get the ax at any time, man
your life could be instantly and completely transformed by an accident, a death, a promotion, any number of black swans
you may not be able to find work afterwards. Would you be too proud to beg for scraps then? When the cupboard is full of ramen noodles and the student loan collectors ring you three times a day?
I have to admit to a little offense at this characterization. I am a competent, intelligent, college educated young professional. In January 2009, my company cut my hours -- not because of anything I'd done, but because like many companies in 2009, we were bleeding money. And the low level employees are always the most expendable. So they saved somebody else's job by demoting me to part time and taking away my benefits.
I collected part-time unemployment while I looked for full time work. And you know what? there was dick out there. I couldn't find work. Not because I was lazy, there just weren't any jobs for me. Your application sits in a stack with 300+ other people's applications. You get so excited when somebody actually calls you in for an interview, you put on your best suit, your best self, and then you find out they're interviewing 13 people for the same position that day.
So I could have probably gotten a shitty job working in retail or food service, but shit - I'm a 28 year old college grad. I'd be making the same pay in a whole week as I used to in 2 or 3 days.
So you're saying that an attitude of resisting reliance on government subsidies is inferior to your own attitude of refusal to get a food service job?
QuoteOnce you go down that hill, it's really hard to climb back up. Instead I got some unemployment to get me through the hard times, and now that the economy has relaxed a bit, my company hired me back full time. So for me, the story has a happy ending. But it didn't for a lot of people.
You could have, instead, gotten that job that you felt you were too good for and not continued to search for another job more acceptable for someone of your status. I've worked in fast food before. It isn't fun, it isn't easy, but it is enough to get by. At least you can get a good paying job if the market is good. Not quite hard times.
Quote
I don't begrudge people for not having a job when there's no jobs to go around. It's not a measure of skill or worth. We are trapped in the belly of the beast, and the beast is bleeding to death.
I don't either. I begrudge people for not having a job when there
are jobs to go around. Or for collecting unemployment whilst actually having a job.
- DeadLucky
Quote from: DeadLucky on May 24, 2010, 11:40:55 PMI'm sorry to hear that. I understand that my comment may have been taken as abrasive and insensitive, and honestly I didn't think about the ramifications of such. I apologize for the brazenness that which I announced sleep-deprived rantings. I didn't mean to insinuate that there are no cases in which such programs are necessary. In fact, I feel that such programs should be available and privately commercial, but perhaps not be mandatory to pay into: i.e. insurance.
You think? Do you think that I'd be pissed off because you just said that I deserve to starve underneath a bridge? The apology isn't accepted, you don't get one just because you ask for it. Earn it, fuckhead.
Oh, and just so we're clear, the private insurance thing, not ever going to be an equivalent alternative. Just like how our private health care system sucks in comparison to universal health care programs. Speaking of, it's another thing I don't have due to the unemployment. My health care plan is "don't get sick." But, better to have somebody who is educated die from something easy to prevent than to consider that maybe, just maybe we live in a society and that you have responsibilities to that society. I
want to get a job, I
hate being on welfare. I want to pay taxes again, knowing that it goes towards NiceThings™ like highways and public schools and social security. We're social animals, libertarians need to get that through their fucking skulls.
Quote from: DeadLucky on May 24, 2010, 11:40:55 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on May 24, 2010, 04:59:29 PM
Once you go down that hill, it's really hard to climb back up. Instead I got some unemployment to get me through the hard times, and now that the economy has relaxed a bit, my company hired me back full time. So for me, the story has a happy ending. But it didn't for a lot of people.
You could have, instead, gotten that job that you felt you were too good for and not continued to search for another job more acceptable for someone of your status. I've worked in fast food before. It isn't fun, it isn't easy, but it is enough to get by. At least you can get a good paying job if the market is good. Not quite hard times.
I was still working at the publishing house 3 days per week. I was only collecting unemployment for 2 days per week. If I had left the office to go do retail/food, I'd be working twice as long for the same pay. By working in a McD's kitchen, I'd also be making myself less attractive to people hiring me for the jobs I actually want. The unemployment money allowed me to continue living in my current apartment and continue working at that job, as opposed to quitting that and working 40 hours a week doing something I'm overqualified for. I was already dirty poor and living in ghetto ass yonkers, I'm so glad I didn't have to get even more desperate and destitute to get to the other side of the tunnel.
I'm not too good to work retail, btw. In fact, I've already been down that road --- my first job out of college was working at Toys R Us. Then, I found work performing clinical drug research, then eventually I went back to retail. Now publishing, then ...?
come on, there's gotta be more than two rungs on this ladder! :p
so thank, Uncle Sam!
Quote from: DeadLucky on May 24, 2010, 11:40:55 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 24, 2010, 10:15:24 PM
(hint, it's a polite way of saying Anarchist)
Small government isn't no government. That's like say that Socailism is a polite way of saying Communism. It isn't.
Uh, no, Libertarian-socialism refers to a form of anarchy, I forget which kind, as I can't be arsed to keep tack of them, but I think its one of the no private property ones. The 'libertarian' part started being used to refer to something completely different later on.
Quote from: DeadLucky on May 24, 2010, 11:40:55 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 24, 2010, 10:15:24 PM
(hint, it's a polite way of saying Anarchist)
Small government isn't no government. That's like say that Socailism is a polite way of saying Communism. It isn't.
QuoteThe term anarchism derives from the Greek ἄναρχος, anarchos, meaning "without rulers", from the prefix ἀν- (an-, "without") + ἀρχή (archê, "sovereignty, realm, magistracy") + -ισμός (-ismos, from the suffix -ιζειν, -izein "-izing"). There is some ambiguity with the use of the terms "libertarianism" and "libertarian" in writings about anarchism. Since the 1890s from France,[17] the term "libertarianism" has often been used as a synonym for anarchism and was used almost exclusively in this sense until the 1950s in the United States;[18] its use as a synonym is still common outside the United States. Accordingly, "libertarian socialism" is sometimes used as a synonym for socialist anarchism, to distinguish it from "individualist libertarianism" (individualist anarchism). On the other hand, some use "libertarianism" to refer to individualistic free-market philosophy only, referring to free-market anarchism as "libertarian anarchism."
Copied from Wikipedia, as you may notice Libertarianism has only been used in the minimal government free market sense you are referring to since the 1950's but has denoted an Anarchist for another 50 years before that and it is still used to denote an Anarchist in countries that are not the US. Also, Libertarian Socialist is an older term than Libertarian Capitalist (the form assumed by the US Libertarian party) and means an Anarchist Socialist, as opposed to a Communist, or a Social Democrat, or an Individualist Anarchist.
Quote from: Vene on May 25, 2010, 12:41:52 AM
You think? Do you think that I'd be pissed off because you just said that I deserve to starve underneath a bridge? The apology isn't accepted, you don't get one just because you ask for it. Earn it, fuckhead.
Nobody deserves to starve underneath a bridge, Vene. And how the hell do you earn forgiveness over the internet? I can't very well bake you cookies for your bridgewarming party. I apologized. Honestly, this whole thread is a little too serious, I didn't mean to insult, I just failed to use any tact in how I commented. Moderately unintentional abrasive oversimplification vs. conscious insults.
Quote from: Vene on May 25, 2010, 12:41:52 AMOh, and just so we're clear, the private insurance thing, not ever going to be an equivalent alternative. Just like how our private health care system sucks in comparison to universal health care programs. Speaking of, it's another thing I don't have due to the unemployment. My health care plan is "don't get sick."
:cry:
Quote from: Vene on May 25, 2010, 12:41:52 AMBut, better to have somebody who is educated die from something easy to prevent than to consider that maybe, just maybe we live in a society and that you have responsibilities to that society. I want to get a job, I hate being on welfare. I want to pay taxes again, knowing that it goes towards NiceThings™ like highways and public schools and social security.
Theoretically, while it would be difficult for such an organization to keep track of where its money is going, and whom to pay it to, I'd be willing to advocate private charity as an opposite to government welfare. Just because it doesn't exist to the extent that it would need to doesn't mean that it
can't or
shouldn't.
Quote from: Vene on May 25, 2010, 12:41:52 AMWe're social animals, libertarians need to get that through their fucking skulls.
Not only am I a social animal, I'm also a party animal. /conga line.
- DeadLucky
Quote from: DeadLucky on May 25, 2010, 04:34:15 AM
Quote from: Vene on May 25, 2010, 12:41:52 AM
You think? Do you think that I'd be pissed off because you just said that I deserve to starve underneath a bridge? The apology isn't accepted, you don't get one just because you ask for it. Earn it, fuckhead.
Nobody deserves to starve underneath a bridge, Vene. And how the hell do you earn forgiveness over the internet? I can't very well bake you cookies for your bridgewarming party. I apologized. Honestly, this whole thread is a little too serious, I didn't mean to insult, I just failed to use any tact in how I commented. Moderately unintentional abrasive oversimplification vs. conscious insults.
No, you were judging people in a situation that you obviously do not know SHIT FUCK about.
Being on welfare aint no party either. Not at all. You say it like you think it's "free moneys", which means you know DICK. But you are oooh sooo quick to judge.
FYI I'm from the Netherlands and I know welfare is tough enough already here, in the US [and most other countries I know of] it's way worse, so no, you're really being an asshole here. You need to check yourself and check yourself real good. Cause you think you're being all reasonable spouting this shit, even when you're being proven wrong [re: Vene etc]. But you're not. Life is not "every man for themselves", and it never has been. Sure, social security used to be done on a more local neighbourhood/family level. But was it voluntary? You bet your ass it wasn't. Not unless you'd like to starve or rot the first opportunity fate could throw it at you. Never was, and never will be. No man, think about it.
If you think you got yourself in a nice cozy position up high and dry in society, if you think you can pull it on your own when misfortune comes your way, okay let us assume you're not horribly mistaken (in which case you're just dumb). The way your (our) society works right now determines that only a small part of society can be in such a dead lucky position to survive misfortune without a social safety net without too many scars. If you say this social safety net is to be done away with, you're damning all those other people. And if you think people should take care of eachother on a more local level, well, two things: First with that attitude of yours, they maybe aren't gonna be taking care of you, for long.
Second, more importantly, there are a whole bunch of systems in place in current society making sure that the local neighbourhood/family social safety net cannot provide and/or function properly. And these systems don't have anything to do with government taxes and welfare (which actually help), but corporations, which are, by definition, non-democratic and amoral.
QuoteQuote from: Vene on May 25, 2010, 12:41:52 AMBut, better to have somebody who is educated die from something easy to prevent than to consider that maybe, just maybe we live in a society and that you have responsibilities to that society. I want to get a job, I hate being on welfare. I want to pay taxes again, knowing that it goes towards NiceThings™ like highways and public schools and social security.
Theoretically, while it would be difficult for such an organization to keep track of where its money is going, and whom to pay it to, I'd be willing to advocate private charity as an opposite to government welfare. Just because it doesn't exist to the extent that it would need to doesn't mean that it can't or shouldn't.
except that evidence sort of points entirely the other way.
this point of view is based purely on wishful thinking. the "world peace would work if everyone would be nice to eachother" kind. [not saying that you say this, but it's similar reasoning]
the (largely privatized) US healthcare system is the most ineffective and most expensive-per-capita system in the WORLD.
All over the entire fucking world, whereever universal healthcare is (even somewhat!) implemented, it's [relatively] efficient and [relatively] cheap. Please point me to ONE example anywhere in the world or even history where a largely privatized healthcare system actually worked for the majority of the population.
Look it up.
Yeah it *could* work, in *theory*, just like world-peace *could* work, in *theory* if people were just nice to eachother.
["in theory" holding for certain levels of monkey-free models of theories]
Quote from: DeadLucky on May 24, 2010, 04:28:12 PM
If the US were socialist, I still haven't gone to a doctor in a while, and the healthcare system certainly wouldn't be supporting me. I don't need it. I've made my money without it. I also have made my money without receiving any unemployment, disability, welfare, or social security checks. I don't expect to ever get any money in such a manner from the government.
Incidentally, my taxes pay for such programs, however. Its all shit, and it is free for the end user.
No offence to those who are reliant upon such programs, but I consider myself a little to good to be begging for scraps from the table of wealth and excesses. Call it a Greyfaced attitude of snobbery if you must. The American Dream is no longer to go from poverty or wealth, but to collect unemployment whilst working under the table, yet spending excessive amounts of money on expensive flashy rims and plasma screen televisions and stay in poverty.
Now, if you're talking about taking my money for infrastructure, police, education, the military, you're making sense. However, that's not what I'm concerned about.
- DeadLucky
Wow, you just outed yourself as a complete idiot in more ways than I have time to describe. Good job, moron.
Quote from: Triple Zero on May 26, 2010, 09:41:57 AM
Life is not "every man for themselves", and it never has been.
Ah, but, in my
opinion, it should be.
Quote from: Triple Zero on May 26, 2010, 09:41:57 AMIf you say this social safety net is to be done away with, you're damning all those other people.
I'm not advocating the dissolution of such social safety nets, I'm just saying that it would be nice if it came with a choice. Pay in to it, and have such a safety net, or don't and gamble with your fate. I'm a gambling man, personally. That's all.
Quote from: Triple Zero on May 26, 2010, 09:41:57 AMAnd these systems don't have anything to do with government taxes and welfare (which actually help), but corporations, which are, by definition, non-democratic and amoral.
Some policies of libertarianism are non-democratic and amoral. Personally, I'm more of a free trade, anti-union sort of guy. You could probably tell that. But I like my corporations. Especially the amoral ones.
Quote from: Triple Zero on May 26, 2010, 09:41:57 AMthis point of view is based purely on wishful thinking. the "world peace would work if everyone would be nice to eachother" kind.
Aren't untested theories always wishful thinking? I'm merely talking about what I'd personally prefer the government to be like, for my own selfish gain. I'm not talking about what system would work best for you, or Jack, or Jill, or Rupert. If I thought we were talking about systems that actually work, I wouldn't be advocating libertarianism. It is just an interesting theoretical concept (i.e. wishful thinking). I also talk about other things that don't necessarily exist but would be cool if they did, such as superpowers or the zombie apocalypse.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on May 26, 2010, 06:00:47 PM
Wow, you just outed yourself as a complete idiot in more ways than I have time to describe. Good job, moron.
Thank you. I try.
- Moron
How the fuck do you be free trade and anti union?
Employers can do whatever they want, but employees should be restricted? You're not a libertarian, you're a fucking corporatist.
Corporations are the new nation-state.
or to describe its trophic relation more clearly:
> means farms
\\ means infects
corporation > govt and people
government > people and corp
corp \\ govt
people \\ corp and govt (in theory, but usually they just submit to what is expected from them)
To make this system work for the people we need to get the corps out of the govt and convince the people to use the power they have (in effect: get a spine)
Quote from: DeadLucky on May 26, 2010, 11:41:50 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on May 26, 2010, 09:41:57 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on May 26, 2010, 09:41:57 AMthis point of view is based purely on wishful thinking. the "world peace would work if everyone would be nice to eachother" kind.
Aren't untested theories always wishful thinking? I'm merely talking about what I'd personally prefer the government to be like, for my own selfish gain. I'm not talking about what system would work best for you, or Jack, or Jill, or Rupert. If I thought we were talking about systems that actually work, I wouldn't be advocating libertarianism. It is just an interesting theoretical concept (i.e. wishful thinking). I also talk about other things that don't necessarily exist but would be cool if they did, such as superpowers or the zombie apocalypse.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on May 26, 2010, 06:00:47 PM
Wow, you just outed yourself as a complete idiot in more ways than I have time to describe. Good job, moron.
Thank you. I try.
- Moron
I was under the impression that was the exact purpose of this thread. To try and think up solutions without this becoming a thread about Libertarianism. Not what works personally for you for your own selfish reasons.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on May 27, 2010, 03:24:38 AMI was under the impression that was the exact purpose of this thread. To try and think up solutions without this becoming a thread about Libertarianism. Not what works personally for you for your own selfish reasons.
It was derailed on page fucking one. Damn libertarians. NOT EVERYTHING IS ABOUT YOU!
Quote from: Vene on May 27, 2010, 03:36:44 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on May 27, 2010, 03:24:38 AMI was under the impression that was the exact purpose of this thread. To try and think up solutions without this becoming a thread about Libertarianism. Not what works personally for you for your own selfish reasons.
It was derailed on page fucking one. Damn libertarians. NOT EVERYTHING IS ABOUT YOU!
True, but DeadLucky didn't seem to catch that at all with his last statement. Even if it got derailed, there were a some good on the topic posts along the way.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on May 26, 2010, 11:52:06 PM
How the fuck do you be free trade and anti union?
Employers can do whatever they want, but employees should be restricted? You're not a libertarian, you're a fucking corporatist.
This. And our current system is corporatist, which is anti-capitalist, so DL basically doesn't want anything to change.
Quote from: Regret on May 27, 2010, 12:04:13 AM
Corporations are the new nation-state.
or to describe its trophic relation more clearly:
> means farms
\\ means infects
corporation > govt and people
government > people and corp
corp \\ govt
people \\ corp and govt (in theory, but usually they just submit to what is expected from them)
To make this system work for the people we need to get the corps out of the govt and convince the people to use the power they have (in effect: get a spine)
Ban lobbying, campaign donations over $5, and corporate subsidies. It'll never happen, but it would trigger huge changes.
there obviously has to be changes to the dynamic between corporations and our elected officials, but would simply banning lobbying be a good thing, let alone be feasible?
it is my understanding that lobbying simply refers to having individuals whose job it is to convince elected officials to vote one way or another. is this correct?
there doesn't seem to be anything inherently wrong with that except that the lobbyists are using the strong arm of their campaign donations to unduly influence them, right?
and campaign donations don't seem to have anything inherently wrong with them, either, except that there is an incontrovertible link between money spent and voter response, right?
so it seems that the election process is the issue, and the campaign finance, and lobbying is the symptom, to me...
what are the ideas floating out there to break the link between money spent and votes won?
there's got to be something that can address the root of the problem....
Quote from: Iptuous on May 27, 2010, 04:32:16 AM
there obviously has to be changes to the dynamic between corporations and our elected officials, but would simply banning lobbying be a good thing, let alone be feasible?
it is my understanding that lobbying simply refers to having individuals whose job it is to convince elected officials to vote one way or another. is this correct?
there doesn't seem to be anything inherently wrong with that except that the lobbyists are using the strong arm of their campaign donations to unduly influence them, right?
and campaign donations don't seem to have anything inherently wrong with them, either, except that there is an incontrovertible link between money spent and voter response, right?
so it seems that the election process is the issue, and the campaign finance, and lobbying is the symptom, to me...
what are the ideas floating out there to break the link between money spent and votes won?
there's got to be something that can address the root of the problem....
Make the money less of an issue. The internet is a potential goldmine for campaigning, and can cost little to nothing if done right.
There is a strong link between campaign war-chest and victory. But it's hard to judge that sometimes. Obama had a shit ton of money to work with, but that was because a shit ton of average citizens donated a little money to his campaign. That's how he was able to put out that infomercial before the election. That was an interesting turn of events. So, using that example, what happened? He must have been popular enough at that point, so did he actually need to do that? Or did that essentially solidify his victory? His election was a strange one. All factors seemed to guarantee him victory. He came out of nowhere, beat Hillary, McCain ended up shooting himself in the foot picking Palin (Chaos in action- Palin is now a respected spokestool for the right as a result) and, well, coming across as a crotchety old man who could keel over at anytime, etc, etc...
Back to the point--how can we make that sort of thing the norm, getting more people involved and more people donating, regardless of party or candidate? That will make the politician more beholden to the constituency and not the corporations.
Or, as I suggested earlier, we could put a flat rate upper-limit on how much campaign money can be spent to help level the playing field for everyone and make donations from corporations less relevant.
Not nearly as big of a link between money spent and voter response as people think. You do need a certain amount of money to win, but more money doesn't help that much (in repeat congressional races between the same opponents they have to spend twice as much money to gain 1% of the vote).
Convincing politicians of that though...
As for lobbying, it means anybody who tries to change a politicians mind. (Jenne does lobbying, and doesn't get payed for it, Technically Roger's letters to Harry Reid are lobbying). Professional lobbyists are something of a problem, because they have access to politicians that regular people don't, and even the best possible politician isn't going to do well when he only ever hears one sides arguments.
Also, its not corporate donations that do it, corporations have a 5k limit just like private citizens.
It's the 5k once from each of the 1400 goldman sachs senior partners that does it.
I'm wondering if it would be better to have campaign funds granted by the government, where you can use those funds however you want, but you can't use any other money than that. I'm just not sure how this would be implemented in such a way that makes it possible for new parties to form as well as making it so that there's not 20 different candidates who entered just to take the money and keep it for themselves.
Quote from: Vene on May 27, 2010, 04:59:25 AM
I'm wondering if it would be better to have campaign funds granted by the government, where you can use those funds however you want, but you can't use any other money than that. I'm just not sure how this would be implemented in such a way that makes it possible for new parties to form as well as making it so that there's not 20 different candidates who entered just to take the money and keep it for themselves.
You could do it in such a way that you bill the government directly instead of taking the money.
You'd still have to run a primary on your own dime that way, unless you want the government to foot the bill for every crackpot that declares they want to run.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on May 27, 2010, 05:22:12 AM
You'd still have to run a primary on your own dime that way, unless you want the government to foot the bill for every crackpot that declares they want to run.
Ah, but you do have to have enough signatures to run.
Besides, how many of said crackpots are already able to run on their own dime? :wink:
Quote from: Cramulus on May 04, 2010, 05:59:38 PM
Quote from: CAPTAIN SLACK on May 04, 2010, 01:51:39 AM
If the political system corrupts everybody who goes through it, I'm wondering what the merits might be of a completely random leader selection process that is repeated every couple years or so. Maybe something like jury duty. I mean, the general public does contain all sorts of schmucks that should probably never be in power, but at least the results should be entertaining.
Wait, why am I even posting this?
the greeks experimented with a system in which the senators would be chosen by lottery.
They thought that elections tend to select a certain type of people, and that group of people can't possibly represent the general pubic. Maybe it's better to have a random sampling of elected leaders, thereby ensuring that the government is a reflection of the populace.
The consequence was that that even your idiot neighbor could get elected - you know, the guy who you don't trust to drive a car, let alone make high-impact societally affecting decisions? So they tossed out that one.
[emphasis added]
I am quoting from earlier in this thread to offer a thought on the bolded selection. Michele Bachmann was elected, she can make high-impact societally affecting decisions. I wouldn't trust her to drive a car.
That is all.
Quote from: DeadLucky on May 26, 2010, 11:41:50 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on May 26, 2010, 09:41:57 AM
Life is not "every man for themselves", and it never has been.
Ah, but, in my opinion, it should be.
Then stop fucking complaining so much and DO something about it.
Like moving to Somalia.
Jeez, if you're all about self realization and freedom and choice and every man for himself, what the fuck are you still doing in that country of yours? Can't you take care of your own NEEDS, man? There are vast regions of the world where you have no government (to speak of) and don't need to care for nobody.
QuoteSome policies of libertarianism are non-democratic and amoral. Personally, I'm more of a free trade, anti-union sort of guy. You could probably tell that. But I like my corporations. Especially the amoral ones.
You probably mean "immoral". And even then you're wrong. By definition, libertarianism also comes with a system of ethics and therefore in the point of view of the libertarian, its policies must be moral. Duh.
QuoteAren't untested theories always wishful thinking?
No, sometimes they also come with reasoning that holds up in a logical argument. I tend to prefer those, and ridicule the other.
QuoteI'm merely talking about what I'd personally prefer the government to be like, for my own selfish gain. I'm not talking about what system would work best for you, or Jack, or Jill, or Rupert. If I thought we were talking about systems that actually work, I wouldn't be advocating libertarianism. It is just an interesting theoretical concept (i.e. wishful thinking). I also talk about other things that don't necessarily exist but would be cool if they did, such as superpowers or the zombie apocalypse.
Except that even fictious things like superpowers or the zombie apocalypse somewhat hold up to their own internal logic.
While a healthcare system simply cannot be both efficient and completely privatized. It's one of those things that is simply not fit for a capitalist market. And, as you (are supposed to) know, when a market is inefficient, you are simply burning resources and nobody profits (not even the big corps), in a way not even Eris could say "Oh. Well, then stop.".
Quote from: Triple Zero on May 27, 2010, 10:47:28 AM
While a healthcare system simply cannot be both efficient and completely privatized. It's one of those things that is simply not fit for a capitalist market. And, as you (are supposed to) know, when a market is inefficient, you are simply burning resources and nobody profits (not even the big corps), in a way not even Eris could say "Oh. Well, then stop.".
I'm willing to bet 1 euro that privatized healthcare will be more efficient than socialized healthcare. Ofcourse; they get to be so efficient because they don't try to heal the poor.
Owait you said healthcare system and i kept reading it as medical practice. nevermind. One of the requirements of a healthcare system is that the poor get helped too right?
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 04, 2010, 07:19:52 PM
Maybe a mixture of lottery and require some sort IQ approval test before voting would work.
ditch the rest, it sounds too much like student body council
Unions are very libertarian, they are the free market of employees banding together, in order to meet the needs of the employee market. "The Market" doesn't just mean the Stock Market, or the Corporate Retail Market... it means the market of needs, wants and desires of some group of people... employees, just as equally as employers have needs and wants. The Union helps the employees to get 'what the market can bear' from their employers. Libertarians that see only one side of the coin, promote a bizarre and risky philosophy.
As for the connection between corporations and politicians... There's not a lot we can do right now, in America anyway. The latest Supreme Court decision has seriously hampered any move to cripple Corporate influence over the people and the politics of the US. That decision is of course based on the horrific decision that somehow Corporations are citizens or at least get all the rights of citizens. That sonuvabitch idea needs to die first. Forcing public finance would help, but recent elections have shown us that all the players choose to play where they get the most money.
One thing that might help is a change to the basic election laws that were put in place in the early 1900's. For example, Dem and GOP primary winners are guaranteed top billing on every ballot. All other parties have to go through various hoops to get their names on the ballot. If all parties had to play by the same rules, it may help matters some.
The biggest issue is how to preserve maximum freedom while constricting instances where such freedom is abused. The Libertarian party tends to err by having no way to manage these abuses. The current parties in power tend to err by failing to preserve freedom any chance they get.
I'm not sure which is worse.
I'd like to see the Primaries run along the lines of the shows Wipeout (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1526850/wipeout_episode_3_part_1/), or Ninja Warrior (http://g4tv.com/videos/17753/Ninja-Warrior-Womans-Course/).
No proxies. :evil:
I bet Putin could do it.
Holy fuck, this thread's still going on?