Apparently there has been something of a mini-insurgency within American libertarianism of late to try and align with the political left, rather than right.
Haven't found too much on it yet, but some interesting links and commentary can be found here, for those who want to know more http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2010/08/rumors-of-left-libertarianisms-death-are-greatly-exaggerated/
Very interesting.
ETA: A couple links through picks up this Reason Mag discussion:
http://reason.com/archives/2010/07/12/where-do-libertarians-belong (http://reason.com/archives/2010/07/12/where-do-libertarians-belong)
Also very good
Quote from: Cain on August 31, 2010, 05:06:39 PM
Apparently there has been something of a mini-insurgency within American libertarianism of late to try and align with the political left, rather than right.
Good luck with that. Last I heard, leftists aren't into allowing people to starve to death, which is part of the core beliefs of Libertarianism.
These guys seem to be mostly small l-libertarians, or ex-Cato Institute guys, who aren't usually too insane. I know ED Kain, who I linked to above, actually thinks you need a robust welfare state for the free market to work and is in favour of the kind of fiscal responsibility which means cutting the Pentagon budget and maybe raising some taxes.
I think these are basically the people who looked at the Tea Party crowd and said "you know what, fuck this shit."
Quote from: Cain on August 31, 2010, 05:23:47 PM
These guys seem to be mostly small l-libertarians, or ex-Cato Institute guys, who aren't usually too insane. I know ED Kain, who I linked to above, actually thinks you need a robust welfare state for the free market to work and is in favour of the kind of fiscal responsibility which means cutting the Pentagon budget and maybe raising some taxes.
I think these are basically the people who looked at the Tea Party crowd and said "you know what, fuck this shit."
Those people need to multiply, and fast. The Tea Party's going to fuck some serious shit up, and those of us who USED to care, now no longer do and are looking waaaay too forward to this eventual outcome with all much glee. My only problem with that really being those I love are gonna be the ones fucked with in the end.
Quote from: Cain on August 31, 2010, 05:23:47 PM
I think these are basically the people who looked at the Tea Party crowd and said "you know what, fuck this shit."
I'm kind of thinking this may be the funniest time to be alive in American history.
The left doesn't really exist, and the right is imploding because a BLACK DUDE got elected.
Also, the liberaltarians got kicked out of the Cato Institute, as the Koch family (who bankroll said institute) are trying to reform all their various organizations to throw their full weight behind the Teabaggers and their allies in the GOP. So they're really kinda pissed at the right as a whole, currently.
this is very interesting! I would like to learn more.
Quote from: Cain on August 31, 2010, 05:30:15 PM
Also, the liberaltarians got kicked out of the Cato Institute, as the Koch family (who bankroll said institute) are trying to reform all their various organizations to throw their full weight behind the Teabaggers and their allies in the GOP. So they're really kinda pissed at the right as a whole, currently.
There has to be some way to have fun with this.
More fun than watching the Koch's blow their fortune on idiots with misspelt signs? Its not like the Teabaggers are going to exist long past when the GOP get back into power anyway, except as some sad fringe movement with no influence, so watching them burn the green on a flash-in-the-pan political movement is entertaining enough for me.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 05:19:22 PM
Quote from: Cain on August 31, 2010, 05:06:39 PM
Apparently there has been something of a mini-insurgency within American libertarianism of late to try and align with the political left, rather than right.
Good luck with that. Last I heard, leftists aren't into allowing people to starve to death, which is part of the core beliefs of Libertarianism.
In the linked articles... these guys are basically calling that out as bullshit. Here's a quote from E.D. Kain:
QuoteCountries like Denmark and Switzerland have very redistributive economies in spite of their extraordinarily free economies and hands-off approach to economic matters. In spite of may be the wrong way to phrase this. I believe that for a truly free market society to flourish, a redistributive state must exist alongside it.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/08/26/markets-safety-nets-and-failure/
Quote from: Ratatosk on August 31, 2010, 05:45:40 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 05:19:22 PM
Quote from: Cain on August 31, 2010, 05:06:39 PM
Apparently there has been something of a mini-insurgency within American libertarianism of late to try and align with the political left, rather than right.
Good luck with that. Last I heard, leftists aren't into allowing people to starve to death, which is part of the core beliefs of Libertarianism.
In the linked articles... these guys are basically calling that out as bullshit. Here's a quote from E.D. Kain:
QuoteCountries like Denmark and Switzerland have very redistributive economies in spite of their extraordinarily free economies and hands-off approach to economic matters. In spite of may be the wrong way to phrase this. I believe that for a truly free market society to flourish, a redistributive state must exist alongside it.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/08/26/markets-safety-nets-and-failure/
So, one guy? Because the last time I looked at the lp site - admittedly, that was some time ago - they were still all about handing the entire infrastructure over to corporations, ending all regulation, and letting the bottom rung go underwater.
Quote from: Cain on August 31, 2010, 05:41:24 PM
More fun than watching the Koch's blow their fortune on idiots with misspelt signs? Its not like the Teabaggers are going to exist long past when the GOP get back into power anyway, except as some sad fringe movement with no influence, so watching them burn the green on a flash-in-the-pan political movement is entertaining enough for me.
Oh, yeah, the moment the GOP gets back in, the teabaggers will have all the influence of, say, the Reform Party.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 05:59:15 PM
So, one guy? Because the last time I looked at the lp site - admittedly, that was some time ago - they were still all about handing the entire infrastructure over to corporations, ending all regulation, and letting the bottom rung go underwater.
There are quite a few others, the problem is you have to follow online blogging and libertarian debates to know the names. Most of them don't associate with the Libertarian Party though (in fact, very few online libertarians do, it seems. But then, most are Republicans being crazier than normal, so this is to be expected).
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 05:59:15 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on August 31, 2010, 05:45:40 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 05:19:22 PM
Quote from: Cain on August 31, 2010, 05:06:39 PM
Apparently there has been something of a mini-insurgency within American libertarianism of late to try and align with the political left, rather than right.
Good luck with that. Last I heard, leftists aren't into allowing people to starve to death, which is part of the core beliefs of Libertarianism.
In the linked articles... these guys are basically calling that out as bullshit. Here's a quote from E.D. Kain:
QuoteCountries like Denmark and Switzerland have very redistributive economies in spite of their extraordinarily free economies and hands-off approach to economic matters. In spite of may be the wrong way to phrase this. I believe that for a truly free market society to flourish, a redistributive state must exist alongside it.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/08/26/markets-safety-nets-and-failure/
So, one guy? Because the last time I looked at the lp site - admittedly, that was some time ago - they were still all about handing the entire infrastructure over to corporations, ending all regulation, and letting the bottom rung go underwater.
Not just one guy, here's a quote from Kevin Drum as well:
QuoteIt's useful to know where you can find political allies. If you can find liberals who favor charter schools, less regulation of small businesses, and an end to Fannie Mae, that's well and good. But that's 10% or less of my worldview. I also favor high marginal tax rates on the rich, national healthcare, full funding for Social Security, more spending on early childhood education, stiff regulations on the financial industry, robust environmental rules, a strong labor movement, a cap-and-trade regime to reduce carbon emissions, a major assault on income inequality, more and better public transit, and plenty of other lefty ambitions that I won't bother to list. If we could do all that without a bigger state, that would be fine. But we can't. When it's all said and done, if we lived in Drum World I figure combined government expenditures would be 40-45% of GDP and the funding source for all that would be strongly progressive.
This subset "liberaltarian" seems to be focusing on a streamlined government that acts as a safety net. Their focus seems to be on 'freedom' for the individual to invest and do what they want with their money... for business to compete without government tipping the scales (like with ag subsidies) and overall a focus on the individual. Much more like Locke's liberalism than Rand's psycho views.
See this doesn't sound that bad. I can get behind a lot of the libertarian principles, and would be more amicable towards them if they dropped a lot of the right wing-conservative baggage and compromised with more liberal ideas.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 05:19:22 PM
Quote from: Cain on August 31, 2010, 05:06:39 PM
Apparently there has been something of a mini-insurgency within American libertarianism of late to try and align with the political left, rather than right.
Good luck with that. Last I heard, leftists aren't into allowing people to starve to death, which is part of the core beliefs of Libertarianism.
:lulz:
Quote from: Ratatosk on August 31, 2010, 05:45:40 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 05:19:22 PM
Quote from: Cain on August 31, 2010, 05:06:39 PM
Apparently there has been something of a mini-insurgency within American libertarianism of late to try and align with the political left, rather than right.
Good luck with that. Last I heard, leftists aren't into allowing people to starve to death, which is part of the core beliefs of Libertarianism.
In the linked articles... these guys are basically calling that out as bullshit. Here's a quote from E.D. Kain:
QuoteCountries like Denmark and Switzerland have very redistributive economies in spite of their extraordinarily free economies and hands-off approach to economic matters. In spite of may be the wrong way to phrase this. I believe that for a truly free market society to flourish, a redistributive state must exist alongside it.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/08/26/markets-safety-nets-and-failure/
I can see their place in history having obvious social benefit in helping people to get back on their feet and reemployed, but I'm of the opinion that this should be a societal stepping stone that can eventually become obsolete as education on fiscal matters, money credit and it's use and abuse, personal responsibility for your own safety net and better planning is taught to our children at a much younger age.
If we had classes on debt and capital starting young and continuing all through grade school, I think you'd see a revolution in personal finance that would greatly reduce the need for welfare safety nets.
But what do I know, I just want people to starve. Just the thought of it makes me want to :fap:
Quote from: Cramulus on August 31, 2010, 06:21:57 PM
See this doesn't sound that bad. I can get behind a lot of the libertarian principles, and would be more amicable towards them if they dropped a lot of the right wing-conservative baggage and compromised with more liberal ideas.
libertarians come in flavors the same way Republicrats and Democretins do.. From bat shit insane right leaning (cut off all welfare NOW!!!) to bat shit insane left leaning (legalize beastiality and ALL DRUGZZ!!)
but the ones you wont hear from unless you go looking are much like myself: We lean heavy right on economics issues, banking, taxation, unending welfare. But pretty much left aligned on social issues such as gay marriage (private contract is a private contract) and immigration, legalization of drugs that don't addict people into commiting crimes in order to get their drug, and ending the over seas empire.
the running theme is that the State can only cause harm when it gets involved in markets and legislating morality.
Oh, hell. :lulz:
We have another libertard.
:popcorn:
Yes, social safety nets are *totally* going to be obsolete in a country that's had 10%+ unemployment for three decades. There are really jobs for everyone!
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 31, 2010, 07:04:19 PM
Yes, social safety nets are *totally* going to be obsolete in a country that's had 10%+ unemployment for three decades. There are really jobs for everyone!
No there aren't, ALL THE BROWN PEOPLE TOOK THEM BACK TO MEXICO
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 06:51:36 PM
Oh, hell. :lulz:
We have another libertard.
:lulz:
what do you do to us libertards here, grind us up and feed us to the poor and hungry?
just so we're clear, not saying im against it.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 31, 2010, 07:04:19 PM
Yes, social safety nets are *totally* going to be obsolete in a country that's had 10%+ unemployment for three decades. There are really jobs for everyone!
if not obsolete, at least less used. Incidentally, I'm not so daft as to think you can have 100% employment, as you seem to imply. Nor am I one of those heartless libertards who think the poor can suck it, there's obviously a need for some social welfare or it wouldn't be being utilized on the scale it has been for decades.
I said that through much earlier education on things fiscal, and the teaching of fiscal responsability to generations of children, that you would see it being utilized less and less as people learn to become more reliant on their own ability and that of a much more financially secure family unit. Would it ever be obsolete? I don't really see that happening completely.. but we could certainly take steps that help make the need for it less and less.
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 31, 2010, 07:06:05 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 31, 2010, 07:04:19 PM
Yes, social safety nets are *totally* going to be obsolete in a country that's had 10%+ unemployment for three decades. There are really jobs for everyone!
No there aren't, ALL THE BROWN PEOPLE TOOK THEM BACK TO MEXICO
My son is one of those brown people (actually, he took after me and has light skin and blonde hair) and is currently living in Mexico. I hope to one day get him away from his nutty mother and bring him here to the states so he can TAKE URRR JERRRBS!!
Or I'll set up shop down there within the decade.. haven't really decided yet.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 07:40:46 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 06:51:36 PM
Oh, hell. :lulz:
We have another libertard.
:lulz:
what do you do to us libertards here, grind us up and feed us to the poor and hungry?
just so we're clear, not saying im against it.
No, we just laugh at them for believing in The Free Market™, which is just as silly as communism.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 07:43:50 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 07:40:46 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 06:51:36 PM
Oh, hell. :lulz:
We have another libertard.
:lulz:
what do you do to us libertards here, grind us up and feed us to the poor and hungry?
just so we're clear, not saying im against it.
No, we just laugh at them for believing in The Free Market™, which is just as silly as communism.
The market aint so free in this or any other country. In fact, I'm not sure it ever has been.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 07:46:24 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 07:43:50 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 07:40:46 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 06:51:36 PM
Oh, hell. :lulz:
We have another libertard.
:lulz:
what do you do to us libertards here, grind us up and feed us to the poor and hungry?
just so we're clear, not saying im against it.
No, we just laugh at them for believing in The Free Market™, which is just as silly as communism.
The market aint so free in this or any other country. In fact, I'm not sure it ever has been.
Well, we could start by de-regulating financial institutions. That should be a pretty good test.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 07:46:24 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 07:43:50 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 07:40:46 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 06:51:36 PM
Oh, hell. :lulz:
We have another libertard.
:lulz:
what do you do to us libertards here, grind us up and feed us to the poor and hungry?
just so we're clear, not saying im against it.
No, we just laugh at them for believing in The Free Market™, which is just as silly as communism.
The market aint so free in this or any other country. In fact, I'm not sure it ever has been.
I think the point Dok Howl is making is that libertards believe a Free Market™ is even
possible, and that if it existed, it would somehow solve all their problems.
But I don't want to put words in the good Doktor's mouth.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 07:46:24 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 07:43:50 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 07:40:46 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 06:51:36 PM
Oh, hell. :lulz:
We have another libertard.
:lulz:
what do you do to us libertards here, grind us up and feed us to the poor and hungry?
just so we're clear, not saying im against it.
No, we just laugh at them for believing in The Free Market™, which is just as silly as communism.
The market aint so free in this or any other country. In fact, I'm not sure it ever has been.
That's the point. It doesn't exist, never has, never will.
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 31, 2010, 07:49:58 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 07:46:24 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 07:43:50 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 07:40:46 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 06:51:36 PM
Oh, hell. :lulz:
We have another libertard.
:lulz:
what do you do to us libertards here, grind us up and feed us to the poor and hungry?
just so we're clear, not saying im against it.
No, we just laugh at them for believing in The Free Market™, which is just as silly as communism.
The market aint so free in this or any other country. In fact, I'm not sure it ever has been.
Well, we could start by de-regulating financial institutions. That should be a pretty good test.
Well you certainly let them fail when the idiots making the decisions fail as badly as they have.
you damn sure don't bail them out.
and really, it's fractional reserve banking that should take the blame. With a full reserve requirement to lending, this problem would partially solve itself, as they could never be leveraged like they were.
but I did :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 31, 2010, 07:51:07 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 07:46:24 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 07:43:50 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 07:40:46 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 06:51:36 PM
Oh, hell. :lulz:
We have another libertard.
:lulz:
what do you do to us libertards here, grind us up and feed us to the poor and hungry?
just so we're clear, not saying im against it.
No, we just laugh at them for believing in The Free Market™, which is just as silly as communism.
The market aint so free in this or any other country. In fact, I'm not sure it ever has been.
I think the point Dok Howl is making is that libertards believe a Free Market™ is even possible, and that if it existed, it would somehow solve all their problems.
But I don't want to put words in the good Doktor's mouth.
And here I was thinking this was a discussion about these "liberaltarians" that disagree with the 'completely unregulated' viewpoint.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 07:59:53 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 31, 2010, 07:49:58 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 07:46:24 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 07:43:50 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 07:40:46 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 06:51:36 PM
Oh, hell. :lulz:
We have another libertard.
:lulz:
what do you do to us libertards here, grind us up and feed us to the poor and hungry?
just so we're clear, not saying im against it.
No, we just laugh at them for believing in The Free Market™, which is just as silly as communism.
The market aint so free in this or any other country. In fact, I'm not sure it ever has been.
Well, we could start by de-regulating financial institutions. That should be a pretty good test.
Well you certainly let them fail when the idiots making the decisions fail as badly as they have.
you damn sure don't bail them out.
and really, it's fractional reserve banking that should take the blame. With a full reserve requirement to lending, this problem would partially solve itself, as they could never be leveraged like they were.
but I did :lulz:
Oh, dear. I bet you're a Ron Paul fan, right?
Quote from: Ratatosk on August 31, 2010, 08:03:13 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 31, 2010, 07:51:07 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 07:46:24 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 07:43:50 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 07:40:46 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 06:51:36 PM
Oh, hell. :lulz:
We have another libertard.
:lulz:
what do you do to us libertards here, grind us up and feed us to the poor and hungry?
just so we're clear, not saying im against it.
No, we just laugh at them for believing in The Free Market™, which is just as silly as communism.
The market aint so free in this or any other country. In fact, I'm not sure it ever has been.
I think the point Dok Howl is making is that libertards believe a Free Market™ is even possible, and that if it existed, it would somehow solve all their problems.
But I don't want to put words in the good Doktor's mouth.
And here I was thinking this was a discussion about these "liberaltarians" that disagree with the 'completely unregulated' viewpoint.
Buy into monkey politics, and you're just one strain or another of monkey.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 08:04:21 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on August 31, 2010, 08:03:13 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 31, 2010, 07:51:07 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 07:46:24 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 07:43:50 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 07:40:46 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 06:51:36 PM
Oh, hell. :lulz:
We have another libertard.
:lulz:
what do you do to us libertards here, grind us up and feed us to the poor and hungry?
just so we're clear, not saying im against it.
No, we just laugh at them for believing in The Free Market™, which is just as silly as communism.
The market aint so free in this or any other country. In fact, I'm not sure it ever has been.
I think the point Dok Howl is making is that libertards believe a Free Market™ is even possible, and that if it existed, it would somehow solve all their problems.
But I don't want to put words in the good Doktor's mouth.
And here I was thinking this was a discussion about these "liberaltarians" that disagree with the 'completely unregulated' viewpoint.
Buy into monkey politics, and you're just one strain or another of monkey.
Discussing = buying into?
Besides, we're all one strain of monkey or another, even if the politics we buy into is not to buy into the other monkey politics... or something like that.
Quote from: Ratatosk on August 31, 2010, 08:10:18 PM
Discussing = buying into?
Besides, we're all one strain of monkey or another, even if the politics we buy into is not to buy into the other monkey politics... or something like that.
1. Dancing Pickle is 169% Libertardian. He's not simply discussing it, he's advocating it.
2. Speak for yourself, simian. My tail fell off in the 1980s.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 07:52:19 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 07:46:24 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 07:43:50 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 07:40:46 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 06:51:36 PM
Oh, hell. :lulz:
We have another libertard.
:lulz:
what do you do to us libertards here, grind us up and feed us to the poor and hungry?
just so we're clear, not saying im against it.
No, we just laugh at them for believing in The Free Market™, which is just as silly as communism.
The market aint so free in this or any other country. In fact, I'm not sure it ever has been.
That's the point. It doesn't exist, never has, never will.
Would it be so bad if it did? If the state was out of the way in controlling the value of money and setting tariffs? Allowing the free movement of people and capital over artificial borders to the places those people and capital are most in demand? Get the state out of the business of giving one group of people privilege over another when exchanging goods through laws? Letting companies that fail, actually fail?
I'm of the opinion you'd find that some people would choose to compete against each other for gain, and others would choose to cooporate for their shared good.
I may be giving talking monkeys too much credit here, granted.
Maybe we are just a bunch of freeloading shits out for our own good at the expense of others.
I'm not, personally, but I could see where there would be people that would.
But that's not much different from what goes on now, except we socialize loss in our current system, where in a free(er) market, those fucks would be sleeping in the streets, as no one would do business with them.
I expect canonball size holes to be shot in this, so load em up, grab your flint locks and let fire.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 08:15:37 PM
Would it be so bad if it did?
Would it be so bad if pigs had wings? I mean, sure, we'd all have to carry umbrellas, but think how neat it would be!
The last time the state bought into the dropping tariffs game (NAFTA), 3 million people lost their jobs. So yes, it would be that bad.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 31, 2010, 08:18:50 PM
The last time the state bought into the dropping tariffs game (NAFTA), 3 million people lost their jobs. So yes, it would be that bad.
Excuse me, but your facts are in his fantasy.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 31, 2010, 08:18:50 PM
The last time the state bought into the dropping tariffs game (NAFTA), 3 million people lost their jobs. So yes, it would be that bad.
And deregulation has worked so well in banking and oil drilling!
We could just be like Somalia, which is a free market paradise! No nasty government leaning on industry!
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 08:15:37 PM
But that's not much different from what goes on now, except we socialize loss in our current system, where in a free(er) market, those fucks would be sleeping in the streets, as no one would do business with them.
As shown with the current economic woes, "those fucks" in the street would
not be the CEOs, board members, or Presidents of companies.
"Those fucks" would be the innocent employees of the failed companies who are now jobless, and the thousands of people whose mortgages are fucked because of the actions of said executives.
In short, the punishment is not meted out among the criminals, but rather the victims.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 08:03:38 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 07:59:53 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 31, 2010, 07:49:58 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 07:46:24 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 07:43:50 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 07:40:46 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 06:51:36 PM
Oh, hell. :lulz:
We have another libertard.
:lulz:
what do you do to us libertards here, grind us up and feed us to the poor and hungry?
just so we're clear, not saying im against it.
No, we just laugh at them for believing in The Free Market™, which is just as silly as communism.
The market aint so free in this or any other country. In fact, I'm not sure it ever has been.
Well, we could start by de-regulating financial institutions. That should be a pretty good test.
Well you certainly let them fail when the idiots making the decisions fail as badly as they have.
you damn sure don't bail them out.
and really, it's fractional reserve banking that should take the blame. With a full reserve requirement to lending, this problem would partially solve itself, as they could never be leveraged like they were.
but I did :lulz:
Oh, dear. I bet you're a Ron Paul fan, right?
He's too old for me. And his position on abortion doesn't jive with me, though I understand his reasons. I agree with him on the war, the Americunt Empire, and Central Banking.
Fan is short for fanatic, and I try never to be a fanatic about anything. My opinions and beliefs are always fluid and can be changed with new information as I learn it. Can't possibly have learned or read everything.. yet.
I am more of a Ludwig von Mises libertarian though.
It was cool hearing someone actually talk about currency in the last election. I didn't vote for him though. Poor guy didn't stand a chance.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 31, 2010, 08:18:50 PM
The last time the state bought into the dropping tariffs game (NAFTA), 3 million people lost their jobs. So yes, it would be that bad.
Nafta is managed trade.
certain people have an advantage.
and isn't this argument more of the DEY TOOK UURRR JERRBS mess?
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 08:22:25 PM
Fan is short for fanatic, and I try never to be a fanatic about anything.
Libertarians are by definition fanatics.
As proof, I offer Dok Alphapance's rebuttal, above. If you weren't a fanatic, you'd have seen that yourself.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 08:25:07 PM
and isn't this argument more of the DEY TOOK UURRR JERRBS mess?
Holy shit. I didn't realize you were a fucking idiot. Sorry for bothering you.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 31, 2010, 08:22:17 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 08:15:37 PM
But that's not much different from what goes on now, except we socialize loss in our current system, where in a free(er) market, those fucks would be sleeping in the streets, as no one would do business with them.
As shown with the current economic woes, "those fucks" in the street would not be the CEOs, board members, or Presidents of companies.
"Those fucks" would be the innocent employees of the failed companies who are now jobless, and the thousands of people whose mortgages are fucked because of the actions of said executives.
In short, the punishment is not meted out among the criminals, but rather the victims.
and the banks wouldnt have failed like they did with a reserve requirement closer to sanity.
the overleveraging wouldnt have been possible.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 08:29:12 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 31, 2010, 08:22:17 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 08:15:37 PM
But that's not much different from what goes on now, except we socialize loss in our current system, where in a free(er) market, those fucks would be sleeping in the streets, as no one would do business with them.
As shown with the current economic woes, "those fucks" in the street would not be the CEOs, board members, or Presidents of companies.
"Those fucks" would be the innocent employees of the failed companies who are now jobless, and the thousands of people whose mortgages are fucked because of the actions of said executives.
In short, the punishment is not meted out among the criminals, but rather the victims.
and the banks wouldnt have failed like they did with a reserve requirement closer to sanity.
the overleveraging wouldnt have been possible.
Yeah, 1929 is on the phone for you.
Yes but in anything even remotely resembling a libertarian system there wouldn't be a reserve requirement at all.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 31, 2010, 08:30:54 PM
Yes but in anything even remotely resembling a libertarian system there wouldn't be a reserve requirement at all.
That's what I was thinking... Sounds like a constraint on the free market.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 08:29:12 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 31, 2010, 08:22:17 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 08:15:37 PM
But that's not much different from what goes on now, except we socialize loss in our current system, where in a free(er) market, those fucks would be sleeping in the streets, as no one would do business with them.
As shown with the current economic woes, "those fucks" in the street would not be the CEOs, board members, or Presidents of companies.
"Those fucks" would be the innocent employees of the failed companies who are now jobless, and the thousands of people whose mortgages are fucked because of the actions of said executives.
In short, the punishment is not meted out among the criminals, but rather the victims.
and the banks wouldnt have failed like they did with a reserve requirement closer to sanity.
the overleveraging wouldnt have been possible.
Are you serious? Did you even study the way it was all done?
Okay, honest question. Have you done your own homework or are you a parrot as far as this goes?
Back on topic, I'm not sure I want the libertarians on my side.
It would be like having David Duke endorsing a right wing nut.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 08:25:48 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 08:25:07 PM
and isn't this argument more of the DEY TOOK UURRR JERRBS mess?
Holy shit. I didn't realize you were a fucking idiot. Sorry for bothering you.
hey, no problem. was a nice little chat we were having.
I'm no fan of NAFTA, as it gives privileges to certain companies, rather than letting the price and quality of goods decide.
eliminating tarrifs while mandating that firms prefer one countries goods over another kinda fucks up the entire concept.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 08:30:33 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 08:29:12 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 31, 2010, 08:22:17 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 08:15:37 PM
But that's not much different from what goes on now, except we socialize loss in our current system, where in a free(er) market, those fucks would be sleeping in the streets, as no one would do business with them.
As shown with the current economic woes, "those fucks" in the street would not be the CEOs, board members, or Presidents of companies.
"Those fucks" would be the innocent employees of the failed companies who are now jobless, and the thousands of people whose mortgages are fucked because of the actions of said executives.
In short, the punishment is not meted out among the criminals, but rather the victims.
and the banks wouldnt have failed like they did with a reserve requirement closer to sanity.
the overleveraging wouldnt have been possible.
Yeah, 1929 is on the phone for you.
fractional reserve.
that existed then too.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 08:35:03 PM
Back on topic, I'm not sure I want the libertarians on my side.
It would be like having David Duke endorsing a right wing nut.
I don't think it matters, libertarians have never proved to be more than an annoyance.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 08:35:28 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 08:25:48 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 08:25:07 PM
and isn't this argument more of the DEY TOOK UURRR JERRBS mess?
Holy shit. I didn't realize you were a fucking idiot. Sorry for bothering you.
hey, no problem. was a nice little chat we were having.
Not really. You were using a strawman argument. That's not very nice.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 08:36:24 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 08:30:33 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 08:29:12 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 31, 2010, 08:22:17 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 08:15:37 PM
But that's not much different from what goes on now, except we socialize loss in our current system, where in a free(er) market, those fucks would be sleeping in the streets, as no one would do business with them.
As shown with the current economic woes, "those fucks" in the street would not be the CEOs, board members, or Presidents of companies.
"Those fucks" would be the innocent employees of the failed companies who are now jobless, and the thousands of people whose mortgages are fucked because of the actions of said executives.
In short, the punishment is not meted out among the criminals, but rather the victims.
and the banks wouldnt have failed like they did with a reserve requirement closer to sanity.
the overleveraging wouldnt have been possible.
Yeah, 1929 is on the phone for you.
fractional reserve.
that existed then too.
I see. It had nothing to do with stock pumping, or any other bad practices. My bad.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 31, 2010, 08:37:06 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 08:35:03 PM
Back on topic, I'm not sure I want the libertarians on my side.
It would be like having David Duke endorsing a right wing nut.
I don't think it matters, libertarians have never proved to be more than an annoyance.
Or a source of humor. I think they got a dog catcher elected once, somewhere in Montana or some shit.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 31, 2010, 08:30:54 PM
Yes but in anything even remotely resembling a libertarian system there wouldn't be a reserve requirement at all.
this is wrong.
it would actually be a more secure banking system as you can't lend out money you don't have, or have a central bank entering numbers into a ledger to create money.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 08:39:41 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 31, 2010, 08:30:54 PM
Yes but in anything even remotely resembling a libertarian system there wouldn't be a reserve requirement at all.
this is wrong.
it would actually be a more secure banking system as you can't lend out money you don't have, or have a central bank entering numbers into a ledger to create money.
Yes, because there was never a crash before the federal reserve was formed, right?
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 31, 2010, 08:32:53 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 08:29:12 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 31, 2010, 08:22:17 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 08:15:37 PM
But that's not much different from what goes on now, except we socialize loss in our current system, where in a free(er) market, those fucks would be sleeping in the streets, as no one would do business with them.
As shown with the current economic woes, "those fucks" in the street would not be the CEOs, board members, or Presidents of companies.
"Those fucks" would be the innocent employees of the failed companies who are now jobless, and the thousands of people whose mortgages are fucked because of the actions of said executives.
In short, the punishment is not meted out among the criminals, but rather the victims.
and the banks wouldnt have failed like they did with a reserve requirement closer to sanity.
the overleveraging wouldnt have been possible.
Are you serious? Did you even study the way it was all done?
Okay, honest question. Have you done your own homework or are you a parrot as far as this goes?
I've done a LOT of reading, but I can't have read everything.
I'm always open to new sources of info.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 08:42:39 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 31, 2010, 08:32:53 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 08:29:12 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 31, 2010, 08:22:17 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 08:15:37 PM
But that's not much different from what goes on now, except we socialize loss in our current system, where in a free(er) market, those fucks would be sleeping in the streets, as no one would do business with them.
As shown with the current economic woes, "those fucks" in the street would not be the CEOs, board members, or Presidents of companies.
"Those fucks" would be the innocent employees of the failed companies who are now jobless, and the thousands of people whose mortgages are fucked because of the actions of said executives.
In short, the punishment is not meted out among the criminals, but rather the victims.
and the banks wouldnt have failed like they did with a reserve requirement closer to sanity.
the overleveraging wouldnt have been possible.
Are you serious? Did you even study the way it was all done?
Okay, honest question. Have you done your own homework or are you a parrot as far as this goes?
I've done a LOT of reading, but I can't have read everything.
I'm always open to new sources of info.
Well, there's always that "reality" thing. But most people don't consider it a credible source.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 08:42:39 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 31, 2010, 08:32:53 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 08:29:12 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 31, 2010, 08:22:17 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 08:15:37 PM
But that's not much different from what goes on now, except we socialize loss in our current system, where in a free(er) market, those fucks would be sleeping in the streets, as no one would do business with them.
As shown with the current economic woes, "those fucks" in the street would not be the CEOs, board members, or Presidents of companies.
"Those fucks" would be the innocent employees of the failed companies who are now jobless, and the thousands of people whose mortgages are fucked because of the actions of said executives.
In short, the punishment is not meted out among the criminals, but rather the victims.
and the banks wouldnt have failed like they did with a reserve requirement closer to sanity.
the overleveraging wouldnt have been possible.
Are you serious? Did you even study the way it was all done?
Okay, honest question. Have you done your own homework or are you a parrot as far as this goes?
I've done a LOT of reading, but I can't have read everything.
I'm always open to new sources of info.
Okay, bear with me a moment.
Free market fails in Somalia. You say the are doing it wrong.
Tariff (NAFTA) failed. You say they are doing it wrong.
Deregulation in the financial industry failed. You say they are doing it wrong.
Every example that is proven as a failure of what you want is written off as 'they are doing it wrong'.
Perhaps....well....could it be the ideas that are wrong?
It's like communism, you know? The people who do it just aren't PURE enough.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 08:50:16 PM
It's like communism, you know? The people who do it just aren't PURE enough.
Exactly. And you know what? They never will be, because they're
people.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 08:42:39 PM
I've done a LOT of reading, but I can't have read everything.
I'm always open to new sources of info.
Predictably Irrational (http://www.amazon.com/dp/006135323X/?tag=mh0b-20&hvadid=55526865&ref=pd_sl_81hzwe4my8_b), by Dan Ariely.
It more or less poke holes in the belief that economics, as practiced in reality, is rational. As it turns out, it has no basis in rational or logical thought. People do
not make the most beneficial decision when presented with economic choices.
Which, if you were keeping track, kind of fucks Free Market Theory.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 08:42:19 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 08:39:41 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 31, 2010, 08:30:54 PM
Yes but in anything even remotely resembling a libertarian system there wouldn't be a reserve requirement at all.
this is wrong.
it would actually be a more secure banking system as you can't lend out money you don't have, or have a central bank entering numbers into a ledger to create money.
Yes, because there was never a crash before the federal reserve was formed, right?
touche'
I have no argument on this point. I'll do more research.
I've always been fascinated by the connections between the libertarian movement and Christian Reconstructionism, look up ppl like Gary North and founder of Christian Reconstructionism R.J. Rushdoony. Also Ron Paul speaks constantly at the Constitutional Party, whos founder is, you guessed it, a Christian Reconstructionist. (Howard Phillips)
Now to be fair most libertarians probably have absolutely no connections with the Christian Right, but maybe this is one of the foundations causing some libertarians to distant themselves from the right wing.
The connections between the tea party movement and the Christian Right, especially since they take a lot of their rhetoric straight from the CR movement. This maybe making some people a little antsy. Though this is just a theory.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 31, 2010, 08:55:09 PM
I've always been fascinated by the connections between the libertarian movement and Christian Reconstructionism, look up ppl like Gary North and founder of Christian Reconstructionism R.J. Rushdoony. Also Ron Paul speaks constantly at the Constitutional Party, whos founder is, you guessed it, a Christian Reconstructionist. (Howard Phillips)
Now to be fair most libertarians probably have absolutely no connections with the Christian Right, but maybe this is one of the foundations causing some libertarians to distant themselves from the right wing.
The connections between the tea party movement and the Christian Right, especially since they take a lot of their rhetoric straight from the CR movement. This maybe making some people a little antsy. Though this is just a theory.
Indeed, the initial post that began this was a discussion of libertarians that are claiming the GOP is a bad fit because Social Conservativism flys in the face of Libertarian/Liberal ideas... as does every other major plank in to GOP according to some of those guys. In fact, one of the links off of a link off of Cain's original link went as far as to demean the current view of Libertarian = No Government in my economy as an artifact of being in bed with the Conservatives. Its pretty interesting reading... not as fun as yelling at Pickles though. ;-)
Quote from: Ratatosk on August 31, 2010, 08:59:44 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 31, 2010, 08:55:09 PM
I've always been fascinated by the connections between the libertarian movement and Christian Reconstructionism, look up ppl like Gary North and founder of Christian Reconstructionism R.J. Rushdoony. Also Ron Paul speaks constantly at the Constitutional Party, whos founder is, you guessed it, a Christian Reconstructionist. (Howard Phillips)
Now to be fair most libertarians probably have absolutely no connections with the Christian Right, but maybe this is one of the foundations causing some libertarians to distant themselves from the right wing.
The connections between the tea party movement and the Christian Right, especially since they take a lot of their rhetoric straight from the CR movement. This maybe making some people a little antsy. Though this is just a theory.
Indeed, the initial post that began this was a discussion of libertarians that are claiming the GOP is a bad fit because Social Conservativism flys in the face of Libertarian/Liberal ideas... as does every other major plank in to GOP according to some of those guys. In fact, one of the links off of a link off of Cain's original link went as far as to demean the current view of Libertarian = No Government in my economy as an artifact of being in bed with the Conservatives. Its pretty interesting reading... not as fun as yelling at Pickles though. ;-)
Is anything that much fun?
and it was a good read. I found the critique by Jonah Goldberg to have excellent points about the essay though.
Jonah "liberals are the real fascists because they wont let me smoke wherever I want, hey lets go torture some Arabs" Goldberg?
Quote from: Ratatosk on August 31, 2010, 08:59:44 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 31, 2010, 08:55:09 PM
I've always been fascinated by the connections between the libertarian movement and Christian Reconstructionism, look up ppl like Gary North and founder of Christian Reconstructionism R.J. Rushdoony. Also Ron Paul speaks constantly at the Constitutional Party, whos founder is, you guessed it, a Christian Reconstructionist. (Howard Phillips)
Now to be fair most libertarians probably have absolutely no connections with the Christian Right, but maybe this is one of the foundations causing some libertarians to distant themselves from the right wing.
The connections between the tea party movement and the Christian Right, especially since they take a lot of their rhetoric straight from the CR movement. This maybe making some people a little antsy. Though this is just a theory.
Indeed, the initial post that began this was a discussion of libertarians that are claiming the GOP is a bad fit because Social Conservativism flys in the face of Libertarian/Liberal ideas... as does every other major plank in to GOP according to some of those guys. In fact, one of the links off of a link off of Cain's original link went as far as to demean the current view of Libertarian = No Government in my economy as an artifact of being in bed with the Conservatives. Its pretty interesting reading... not as fun as yelling at Pickles though. ;-)
It's like watching the parties play pin the tail on the donkey, without anyone giving hints. The Dems can't even find the wall. The repubs found the wall, claimed they pinned the tail in the right spot without even looking, and the rest are just following the wall blindly with their hands. Maybe it it breaks badly enough one of these splinter groups will actually start something good.
Quote from: Cain on August 31, 2010, 09:07:17 PM
Jonah "liberals are the real fascists because they wont let me smoke wherever I want, hey lets go torture some Arabs" Goldberg?
didn't say anything about liking him or his beliefs, just saying he made good points on the essay.
In regards to the article and premise the author proposes, I've often thought it would be easier to teach liberals about sound money than it would be to get Religious Rights to change their holy war kick with the middle east. But that doesn't excuse the glaring differences libertarians have with liberals with regard to taxes, social justice (whatever that's supposed to be), political correctness, foreign policy, etc.
and really the democrats haven't had much of a public movement, with differences in minor policy beliefs being put aside in order to put forth a cohesive agenda that people can understand, for decades.
I agree with her that libertarians really are politically homeless, but in the absence of a viable third party at least the tea party (parts of it) are TALKING fiscal responsibility, even if it's 10 years too late.
that being said, I refuse to associate with the large number of the mouth breathers in the movement, and find it nearly impossible to defend it as a whole seeing as what it's morphed into after being hijacked by Beck, Palin, et al. The ones I met back before the election were mostly Paul Tards, who generally I agreed with on the war and deficits.. now? :x
Making libertarianism centrist, or populist would be a great aspiration for those of us who are libertarian. And for you detractors, that doesn't mean you have to be a raving Rand head to appreciate the more workable and logical libertard ideas, like opposition the drug war and building military bases on angry religious people's land.
I'm sure I'll probably still get shit for this though.. I'm beginning to get a feel for this board.
just so we're clear, doesn't mean I don't still like it here. I'm staying fuckers.
On the political spectrum they taught me in highschool populist and libertarian are on opposite sides.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on August 31, 2010, 10:47:41 PM
On the political spectrum they taught me in highschool populist and libertarian are on opposite sides.
I meant it as in making it more mainstream. Should have clarified.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 10:38:53 PM
In regards to the article and premise the author proposes, I've often thought it would be easier to teach liberals about sound money
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
OH, TEACH ME, GREAT SWAMI! I AM A CAPTIVE AUDIENCE!
:lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 10:58:56 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 10:38:53 PM
In regards to the article and premise the author proposes, I've often thought it would be easier to teach liberals about sound money
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
OH, TEACH ME, GREAT SWAMI! I AM A CAPTIVE AUDIENCE!
:lulz:
not me personally, ass.
I'm no teacher.
and I wasn't aware you leaned liberal until now, but information for trolling purposes is always good information.
(note to self: troll mods very, very carfully, and make sure it's funny)
ok, all points duly noted and completely off subject.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 11:06:34 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 10:58:56 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 10:38:53 PM
In regards to the article and premise the author proposes, I've often thought it would be easier to teach liberals about sound money
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
OH, TEACH ME, GREAT SWAMI! I AM A CAPTIVE AUDIENCE!
:lulz:
not me personally, ass.
I'm no teacher.
and I wasn't aware you leaned liberal until now, but information for trolling purposes is always good information.
(note to self: troll mods very, very carfully, and make sure it's funny)
ok, all points duly noted and completely off subject.
I'm liberal in the sense that Patrick Henry and Benjamin Franklin were liberal, not in the sense that Hillary Pantsuit is "liberal".
And you can troll mods all you like. We don't ban you for it (there's only 6 things that can get you banned).
And we're easy meat. I, for example, just curl up in a little ball and weep like a schoolgirl.
I only hold 2 non wavering political opinions
1) The government's main function is to provide protection and elevation to the lowest in the society
and 2) The government should be subjected far more stringent laws then the people
I don't know if that makes me a hippie liberal...
I do bath
:?
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 31, 2010, 11:26:17 PM
I only hold 2 non wavering political opinions
1) The government's main function is to provide protection and elevation to the lowest in the society
and 2) The government should be subjected far more stringent laws then the people
I don't know if that makes me a hippie liberal...
I do bath
:?
The government
doesn't exist.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 11:06:34 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 10:58:56 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 10:38:53 PM
In regards to the article and premise the author proposes, I've often thought it would be easier to teach liberals about sound money
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
OH, TEACH ME, GREAT SWAMI! I AM A CAPTIVE AUDIENCE!
:lulz:
not me personally, ass.
I'm no teacher.
and I wasn't aware you leaned liberal until now, but information for trolling purposes is always good information.
(note to self: troll mods very, very carfully, and make sure it's funny)
ok, all points duly noted and completely off subject.
we don't abuse our admin powers for things as trifling as being trolled, so while you should still make it funny, we won't respond except as ordinary posters.
and in case you wantto know my political position for future trolling endeavours, I follow the ideology of rational self-interest.
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on August 31, 2010, 11:29:46 PM
and in case you wantto know my political position for future trolling endeavours, I follow the ideology of rational self-interest.
That only leads to tears, you know.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 11:30:57 PM
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on August 31, 2010, 11:29:46 PM
and in case you wantto know my political position for future trolling endeavours, I follow the ideology of rational self-interest.
That only leads to tears, you know.
Don't they all?
I think we're just talking Idealistically Dok
you know for trolling purposes
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 31, 2010, 11:33:06 PM
I think we're just talking Idealistically Dok
you know for trolling purposes
Leave the fucking porpoises alone. They have enough trouble with tuna nets. They don't need a bunch of librarians picking on them, too.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 08:52:51 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 08:42:19 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 08:39:41 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 31, 2010, 08:30:54 PM
Yes but in anything even remotely resembling a libertarian system there wouldn't be a reserve requirement at all.
this is wrong.
it would actually be a more secure banking system as you can't lend out money you don't have, or have a central bank entering numbers into a ledger to create money.
Yes, because there was never a crash before the federal reserve was formed, right?
touche'
I have no argument on this point. I'll do more research.
I had read about reserve requirements in history somewhere.
I realize this is off the original topic and will gladly move this to a new thread if Mods think it's a good idea.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/0693lead.pdf
fact is, fractional reserve banking or no reserve banking was always the culprit in bank runs. This is all dry shit and I wouldn't blame anyone for not wanting to read it, but page 572 is revealing about the first state run banks in this country.
Does full reserve banking jive with the libertarian ideal of ability to create wealth for EVERYONE.. data seems to show no, not immediately. Resources are limited, capital that can be used as collateral against lending can be much harder to acquire for the average person..
building real wealth with borrowing against other people's capital has all sorts of pitfalls and failures that can lead to societal poverty, crime...
I'd love to hear anyone else's ideas of a better run economic system.
I've just recently rejoined the internet-as-a-way-to-learn-new-things thing, as I was away for awhile tending to other things.
please, share away.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 11:30:57 PM
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on August 31, 2010, 11:29:46 PM
and in case you wantto know my political position for future trolling endeavours, I follow the ideology of rational self-interest.
That only leads to tears, you know.
like hell. it's a fancy way of saying that I vote for my poker buddies in town elections.
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on August 31, 2010, 11:29:46 PM
and in case you wantto know my political position for future trolling endeavours, I follow the ideology of rational self-interest.
I lean that way. as long as there's something to lean on.
for the record, I'm adamantly against trolling boards I actually like..
unless it's funny.
sacrafices must be made for comedy.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 31, 2010, 11:40:53 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 31, 2010, 11:33:06 PM
I think we're just talking Idealistically Dok
you know for trolling purposes
Leave the fucking porpoises alone. They have enough trouble with tuna nets. They don't need a bunch of librarians picking on them, too.
11/12ths of them deserved it.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 10:38:53 PM
In regards to the article and premise the author proposes, I've often thought it would be easier to teach liberals about sound money than it would be to get Religious Rights to change their holy war kick with the middle east. But that doesn't excuse the glaring differences libertarians have with liberals with regard to taxes, social justice (whatever that's supposed to be), political correctness, foreign policy, etc.
and really the democrats haven't had much of a public movement, with differences in minor policy beliefs being put aside in order to put forth a cohesive agenda that people can understand, for decades.
I agree with her that libertarians really are politically homeless, but in the absence of a viable third party at least the tea party (parts of it) are TALKING fiscal responsibility, even if it's 10 years too late.
that being said, I refuse to associate with the large number of the mouth breathers in the movement, and find it nearly impossible to defend it as a whole seeing as what it's morphed into after being hijacked by Beck, Palin, et al. The ones I met back before the election were mostly Paul Tards, who generally I agreed with on the war and deficits.. now? :x
Making libertarianism centrist, or populist would be a great aspiration for those of us who are libertarian. And for you detractors, that doesn't mean you have to be a raving Rand head to appreciate the more workable and logical libertard ideas, like opposition the drug war and building military bases on angry religious people's land.
I'm sure I'll probably still get shit for this though.. I'm beginning to get a feel for this board.
just so we're clear, doesn't mean I don't still like it here. I'm staying fuckers.
You'll do. But we will use you as a football.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 01, 2010, 03:36:02 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 31, 2010, 10:38:53 PM
In regards to the article and premise the author proposes, I've often thought it would be easier to teach liberals about sound money than it would be to get Religious Rights to change their holy war kick with the middle east. But that doesn't excuse the glaring differences libertarians have with liberals with regard to taxes, social justice (whatever that's supposed to be), political correctness, foreign policy, etc.
and really the democrats haven't had much of a public movement, with differences in minor policy beliefs being put aside in order to put forth a cohesive agenda that people can understand, for decades.
I agree with her that libertarians really are politically homeless, but in the absence of a viable third party at least the tea party (parts of it) are TALKING fiscal responsibility, even if it's 10 years too late.
that being said, I refuse to associate with the large number of the mouth breathers in the movement, and find it nearly impossible to defend it as a whole seeing as what it's morphed into after being hijacked by Beck, Palin, et al. The ones I met back before the election were mostly Paul Tards, who generally I agreed with on the war and deficits.. now? :x
Making libertarianism centrist, or populist would be a great aspiration for those of us who are libertarian. And for you detractors, that doesn't mean you have to be a raving Rand head to appreciate the more workable and logical libertard ideas, like opposition the drug war and building military bases on angry religious people's land.
I'm sure I'll probably still get shit for this though.. I'm beginning to get a feel for this board.
just so we're clear, doesn't mean I don't still like it here. I'm staying fuckers.
You'll do. But we will use you as a football.
Where's Lucy when you need her?
...Dancing Pickle, are you srs when you say you think there's a fringe element of Liberals on the far left who want to legalize bestiality?
I've NEVER heard of that, except in scaremongering from the Right--the RELIGIOUS Right, by the way, not the Neocons who actually don't give a shit.
I must have missed that.
But upon thinking about it, it's statistically possible that there is a dogfucker out there who votes Democrat, and would like to see beastiality laws revoked.
I'm looking at you, Cram.
:lulz: No, it's just that, it's a perpetuated myth that there's a contingent of ELECTED "libruls" out there who want baby-rapers to go free, all your kids on legalized drugs and a dog/cat/goat for wife for anyone who wants one.
The reality is that many who perpetuate this myth actually ascribe to one or more of those in a mild way, ANYWAY. As in legalizing pot or something, not necessarily the baby-raping one. :lol:
Quote from: Jenne on September 01, 2010, 04:55:23 PM
...Dancing Pickle, are you srs when you say you think there's a fringe element of Liberals on the far left who want to legalize bestiality?
I've NEVER heard of that, except in scaremongering from the Right--the RELIGIOUS Right, by the way, not the Neocons who actually don't give a shit.
i said left leaning libertarians.
i should really work on clarifying my sentences.
Libertarianism is just another ism. It's another pack of primates who have signed onto an agenda that doesn't benefit themselves or their monkeysphere, just like the democratic party or the GOP.
Picking a fringe ideology is still picking an ideology, instead of, you know, thinking for yourself.
In the case of the democrats, they've bought into an ideology that doesn't actually exist.
In the case of the GOP, they've bought into an ideology that division is good for the nation, and that some Americans are more equal than others. The fact that they almost certainly aren't in the more equal group never seems to occur to them.
In the Tea Party, they've bought into the ideology of UNNNNNNG BLACK PRESIDENT OH HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN SHIT SHIT SHIT SOMEONE MAKE IT NEVER HAPPENED!
In the libertarians, they've bought into three notions that are utterly untrue:
1. People and organizations will do what's in their best interests, at least most of the time,
2. "Government" functions would somehow be more efficient if conducted by private organizations. Anyone who's worked in a multinational would giggle their arses off, and
3. Capitalism still means free enterprise.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 01, 2010, 05:20:13 PM
Quote from: Jenne on September 01, 2010, 04:55:23 PM
...Dancing Pickle, are you srs when you say you think there's a fringe element of Liberals on the far left who want to legalize bestiality?
I've NEVER heard of that, except in scaremongering from the Right--the RELIGIOUS Right, by the way, not the Neocons who actually don't give a shit.
i said left leaning libertarians.
i should really work on clarifying my sentences.
K...even so. I never have heard of any far-leftists, even big-L Libertarians, saying to allow dog-and-man marriages.
I have heard them say, "It's up to people themselves to police themselves, so if they wanna do X the government should allow them," but never have I heard a political platform for legalizing dogfucking.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 01, 2010, 05:36:49 PM
Libertarianism is just another ism. It's another pack of primates who have signed onto an agenda that doesn't benefit themselves or their monkeysphere, just like the democratic party or the GOP.
Picking a fringe ideology is still picking an ideology, instead of, you know, thinking for yourself.
In the case of the democrats, they've bought into an ideology that doesn't actually exist.
In the case of the GOP, they've bought into an ideology that division is good for the nation, and that some Americans are more equal than others. The fact that they almost certainly aren't in the more equal group never seems to occur to them.
In the Tea Party, they've bought into the ideology of UNNNNNNG BLACK PRESIDENT OH HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN SHIT SHIT SHIT SOMEONE MAKE IT NEVER HAPPENED!
In the libertarians, they've bought into three notions that are utterly untrue:
1. People and organizations will do what's in their best interests, at least most of the time,
2. "Government" functions would somehow be more efficient if conducted by private organizations. Anyone who's worked in a multinational would giggle their arses off, and
3. Capitalism still means free enterprise.
:mittens:
People seem to think that they are all "black sheep," but as the saying goes, you're STILL A SHEEP, DAMMIT.
as of now, I'm starting the Dogfucker Party.
Sorry, Fred, you've got competition.
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 01, 2010, 06:59:10 PM
as of now, I'm starting the Dogfucker Party.
Sorry, Fred, you've got competition.
you could probably get sponsorship from Motherless.com
that site really opened my eyes to just how many women there are in the world who are willing to: not just fuck a dog, but film it and put it on the internet. The worst part is, you dont even have to click on the video.. they have preview screen shots and while I'm looking for a perfectly respectable piece of pornography to use for educational purposes, there they are, staring back at me, destroying a little more of my nearly non-existant faith in humanity.
makes me wonder what the fuck people did with their dog fucking videos before the internet.. shoebox at the top of the closet? did the internet cause the increase in dog fucking? or was there always a secret underground dog fucking cabal, making videos no one ever saw?
I can't even go into a grocery store anymore without looking around and wondering: How many of them are in here with me? Is that lady in line behind me one of them?? St Bernard or Labrador? WHAT HAS THE INTERNET DONE TO ME?!?
Dancing Pickle--be advised that when you hang out in corners of the interbutts like that, it eats your brain. As long as you're AWARE of the brain-eating, it's ok.
Carry on...
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 01, 2010, 06:59:10 PM
as of now, I'm starting the Dogfucker Party.
Sorry, Fred, you've got competition.
Awesome!
Quote from: Jenne on September 01, 2010, 07:14:12 PM
Dancing Pickle--be advised that when you hang out in corners of the interbutts like that, it eats your brain. As long as you're AWARE of the brain-eating, it's ok.
Carry on...
i know.. i know.. It's like a car crash I can see but I just can't avoid.
I wasn't aware this thread was now about dogfucking.
I would have saved that last response for a more appropriate thread. :lulz:
Sorry.
Moving away from the dogfucking,
Pickle, study a bit of history. Start with the various ups and downs in the American economy going back as far as the record reach, look up the Gilded Age to observe how even in a time of "Laissez-faire" it doesn't exist (look at railroads to start), move on to the causes Great Depression and who it was that got fucked (the Grapes of Wrath is a fascinating read and pretty accurate), then look up labor history and the Great Society program set up by LBJ and its effects. In all time periods, look at the middle and lower classes. You've got all the economic theory; now you have to match it up against history.
If you're feeling brave, match our history/economic system against others, like Europe.
Economic theory relies on some axioms that simply don't hold true IRL (like us being, you know, rational. If we were, the blue collar folks would be stomping on the anti-union Republicans like there's no tomorrow). Also, von Mises economics isn't even a theory - it's just a philosophy because it isn't scientific and doesn't, as I understand it, rely much on numbers much.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 01, 2010, 08:28:15 PM
I wasn't aware this thread was now about dogfucking.
I would have saved that last response for a more appropriate thread. :lulz:
Every conversation should eventually evolve into a convo about dogfucking.
I know mine always do.
Quote from: Jenne on September 01, 2010, 08:29:09 PM
Sorry.
No sweat. My fault for not reading before posting.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on September 01, 2010, 09:27:16 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 01, 2010, 08:28:15 PM
I wasn't aware this thread was now about dogfucking.
I would have saved that last response for a more appropriate thread. :lulz:
Every conversation should eventually evolve into a convo about dogfucking.
I know mine always do.
true story: I almost posted something very nearly exactly like this but it didn't sound funny when I reread it so I deleted it, which may be more revealing than I'm immediately thinking it is but I truly don't care..
seeing someone else write it makes me realize that yes, in fact it is funny.
thank you for this.
I'm chuckling even as I press post.
:mittens:
Quote from: Hover Cat on September 01, 2010, 09:16:24 PM
Moving away from the dogfucking,
Pickle, study a bit of history. Start with the various ups and downs in the American economy going back as far as the record reach, look up the Gilded Age to observe how even in a time of "Laissez-faire" it doesn't exist (look at railroads to start), move on to the causes Great Depression and who it was that got fucked (the Grapes of Wrath is a fascinating read and pretty accurate), then look up labor history and the Great Society program set up by LBJ and its effects. In all time periods, look at the middle and lower classes. You've got all the economic theory; now you have to match it up against history.
If you're feeling brave, match our history/economic system against others, like Europe.
Economic theory relies on some axioms that simply don't hold true IRL (like us being, you know, rational. If we were, the blue collar folks would be stomping on the anti-union Republicans like there's no tomorrow). Also, von Mises economics isn't even a theory - it's just a philosophy because it isn't scientific and doesn't, as I understand it, rely much on numbers much.
I've read The Grapes of Wrath.. many years ago. I'm well versed on the history of economics in this and a few other countries (Weimar was one I read about in detail) and the origins of Central Banking.
You wont hear me arguing against he EVILS OF UNIONS in history. They did and continue to do a lot of good for workers with no voice in the matter. If asked (and I never am) about the problem with modern unions and exploitative practices, I'd probably just end up giving you the same old tired talking points you hear about unions on any libertarian site (at least I'm honest, amirite?)
but a lot of those talking points are true. Especially when you factor in government worker unions.
I'm not a robot spouting what I've read and believe to be true no matter what you or anyone else might think. I've given a lot of thought to where I stand on fiscal issues and, even holding the ones I currently hold, am completely open to new perspectives.
The Ludwig von Mises think tank advocates for Austrian Economics, as opposed to the Keynesian Economics we've been using (rather disastrously I might add, so as Dok Howl says, I really should be FOR it, simply for the chaos it creates in the banking system.. an idea I'm not entirely opposed to accepting)
I consider myself a fortunate individual in that I am not now, even at 31 years of age, set in my beliefs.
I registered on this board because I figured I could learn a thing or two from you subversive fucks that I might have missed while organizing a semi coherent life of my own that allows me to spend time reading BBS's.
I've noted your initial suggestions, continue to recommend away.
Three reasons that Economics is bullshit:
1. It assumes rational actors. Humans are anything if not rational, especially about money. Otherwise there wouldn't be such things as million to one lotteries.
2. It assumes infinite resources. Resources are not infinite.
3. It assumes growth can continue forever. Growth is not infinite.
Thus, a continual cycle of boom and bust, progression and recession, is how these things actually work.
If economics was a science, it would consist of descriptions of how the world actually works, rather than farce and bullshit.
In fact, if economics was a science, it would consist mostly of the study of human irrationality.
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2010, 11:28:42 PM
In fact, if economics was a science, it would consist mostly of the study of human irrationality.
Oh, you mean 'marketing'?
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2010, 11:23:26 PM
Three reasons that Economics is bullshit:
1. It assumes rational actors. Humans are anything if not rational, especially about money. Otherwise there wouldn't be such things as million to one lotteries.
2. It assumes infinite resources. Resources are not infinite.
3. It assumes growth can continue forever. Growth is not infinite.
Thus, a continual cycle of boom and bust, progression and recession, is how these things actually work.
If economics was a science, it would consist of descriptions of how the world actually works, rather than farce and bullshit.
Well said. Insisting that the world works a certain way because that's what you want, or that's what seems to make sense, isn't science if the data doesn't actually support it.
Libertarianism, for example, insists that logic rules the marketplace, when it's actually run by insane hairless monkeys who can't see past the closing bell.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 02, 2010, 12:30:12 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2010, 11:23:26 PM
Three reasons that Economics is bullshit:
1. It assumes rational actors. Humans are anything if not rational, especially about money. Otherwise there wouldn't be such things as million to one lotteries.
2. It assumes infinite resources. Resources are not infinite.
3. It assumes growth can continue forever. Growth is not infinite.
Thus, a continual cycle of boom and bust, progression and recession, is how these things actually work.
If economics was a science, it would consist of descriptions of how the world actually works, rather than farce and bullshit.
Well said. Insisting that the world works a certain way because that's what you want, or that's what seems to make sense, isn't science if the data doesn't actually support it.
Libertarianism, for example, insists that logic rules the marketplace, when it's actually run by insane hairless monkeys who can't see past the closing bell.
All this being said (and absorbed and understood) what then is the alternative?
the system in place has failed dramatically and it's nothing near what libertarians want.
what's a solution that everyone could live with, left leaning and right leaning, and provides for the needs of all of us without completely fucking anyone?
:lulz:
I just realized that the probable answer is that this does not exist.
but you fucks are the most likely I've encountered to at least have creative ideas about it so..
*post*
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 02, 2010, 12:38:35 AM
All this being said (and absorbed and understood) what then is the alternative?
the system in place has failed dramatically and it's nothing near what libertarians want.
The system in place has failed dramatically for 220 years and is somehow still functioning. And nobody cares what Libertarians want.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 02, 2010, 12:38:35 AM
what's a solution that everyone could live with, left leaning and right leaning, and provides for the needs of all of us without completely fucking anyone?
Why on Earth would I want that?
The alternative is making economics into a science of how people actually exchange goods, services, currency and other items of ownership, rather than how some humans THINK that should proceed. This would include studying human behavior, rather than proscribing human behavior.
Rule # 1. Real money doesn't exist.
Rule #2, even if it did exist, people would keep using imaginary money, because walmart takes imaginary money.
Rule #3: You can't eat gold. It's no different than fiat currency.
Does that mean everything should be valued in units of potatoes?
Quote from: Cudgel on September 02, 2010, 03:12:27 AM
Does that mean everything should be valued in units of potatoes?
If it's good enough for Poland, it's good enough for you.
Quote from: Cudgel on September 02, 2010, 03:12:27 AM
Does that mean everything should be valued in units of potatoes?
What? Economics much?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 02, 2010, 03:14:05 AM
Quote from: Cudgel on September 02, 2010, 03:12:27 AM
Does that mean everything should be valued in units of potatoes?
If it's good enough for Poland, it's good enough for you.
I wonder if that one lady from a time ago was serious about paying hospital bills with chickens...
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 02, 2010, 03:24:39 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 02, 2010, 03:14:05 AM
Quote from: Cudgel on September 02, 2010, 03:12:27 AM
Does that mean everything should be valued in units of potatoes?
If it's good enough for Poland, it's good enough for you.
I wonder if that one lady from a time ago was serious about paying hospital bills with chickens...
That was Sue Lowden, Senate Candidate from Nevada, and it was from April of this year.
And yes, she was serious. It was her alternate proposal to the health care bill. No shit.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 02, 2010, 03:27:52 AM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 02, 2010, 03:24:39 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 02, 2010, 03:14:05 AM
Quote from: Cudgel on September 02, 2010, 03:12:27 AM
Does that mean everything should be valued in units of potatoes?
If it's good enough for Poland, it's good enough for you.
I wonder if that one lady from a time ago was serious about paying hospital bills with chickens...
That was Sue Lowden, Senate Candidate from Nevada, and it was from April of this year.
And yes, she was serious. It was her alternate proposal to the health care bill. No shit.
Reason # 1 why gun control should be illegal.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 02, 2010, 03:27:52 AM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 02, 2010, 03:24:39 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 02, 2010, 03:14:05 AM
Quote from: Cudgel on September 02, 2010, 03:12:27 AM
Does that mean everything should be valued in units of potatoes?
If it's good enough for Poland, it's good enough for you.
I wonder if that one lady from a time ago was serious about paying hospital bills with chickens...
That was Sue Lowden, Senate Candidate from Nevada, and it was from April of this year.
And yes, she was serious. It was her alternate proposal to the health care bill. No shit.
That is fucking hilarious. :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :horrormirth: :horrormirth: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
I kinda wish she'd gotten elected, if only because I would really love to release a live chicken in the office of a former doctor of mine.
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 02, 2010, 03:41:42 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 02, 2010, 03:27:52 AM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 02, 2010, 03:24:39 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 02, 2010, 03:14:05 AM
Quote from: Cudgel on September 02, 2010, 03:12:27 AM
Does that mean everything should be valued in units of potatoes?
If it's good enough for Poland, it's good enough for you.
I wonder if that one lady from a time ago was serious about paying hospital bills with chickens...
That was Sue Lowden, Senate Candidate from Nevada, and it was from April of this year.
And yes, she was serious. It was her alternate proposal to the health care bill. No shit.
That is fucking hilarious. :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :horrormirth: :horrormirth: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700030415/Chicken-quip-grounds-high-flying-Nevada-candidate-Sue-Lowden.html
GAZE UPON THE MAJESTY
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 02, 2010, 03:44:58 AM
I kinda wish she'd gotten elected, if only because I would really love to release a live chicken in the office of a former doctor of mine.
Yeah, but Lowden has now thrown her "weight" behind Angle. :lulz:
Uhh, what's a "deseret"?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 02, 2010, 01:46:14 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 02, 2010, 12:38:35 AM
All this being said (and absorbed and understood) what then is the alternative?
the system in place has failed dramatically and it's nothing near what libertarians want.
The system in place has failed dramatically for 220 years and is somehow still functioning. And nobody cares what Libertarians want.
not that Im saying it's not still technically functioning, as the only option legally available for commerce, but there's a lot of out-of-work people who would tell you the system, while functioning, just isn't doing a damn bit of good right now. It reminds me of what I've read about the 70's recession.. I wasn't a monkey back then, but I've done a bit of research.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 02, 2010, 12:38:35 AM
what's a solution that everyone could live with, left leaning and right leaning, and provides for the needs of all of us without completely fucking anyone?
Why on Earth would I want that?
right? fuck em if they can't take a joke.
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2010, 11:28:42 PM
In fact, if economics was a science, it would consist mostly of the study of human irrationality.
It's always been a social science, unless I've been vastly misinformed.
It only exists within a primate social structure.
insects and reptiles have no reason to ever consider currency as an option for survival.
I may be missing your point here.
mine is that economics IS a science. there are several "schools of thought" on the subject, but it is largely held (admittedly, by the same people who study it) as a social science.
Even social sciences (in theory) should be held up to some clear minimum on the science half of the deal. Economics and International Relations (who have a lot of overlap, thanks to game theory and microeconomic modelling) are probably the two worst subjects when it comes to actually explaining the past or present, preferring instead to come up with a bunch of prescriptive theoretical models which align just barely with some facets of widely recognized phenomena.
So, mahjiq?
Pretty much.
Quote from: Cain on September 02, 2010, 05:05:21 AM
Even social sciences (in theory) should be held up to some clear minimum on the science half of the deal. Economics and International Relations (who have a lot of overlap, thanks to game theory and microeconomic modelling) are probably the two worst subjects when it comes to actually explaining the past or present, preferring instead to come up with a bunch of prescriptive theoretical models which align just barely with some facets of widely recognized phenomena.
I'm with you here, but my research on game theory has produced evidence that within certain set and scope, cooporation can and will happen to the benefit of all. Dammit I have to dig up that link.. It's fairly recent and it's far past my bed time to be scouring the internets but it intrigued the hell out of me. Basically (without becoming too dry) a guy wrote a game model that chooses cooperation over destructive confrontation ( or so I gathered at the time.. It's late, it's been some time since I read the concept, and I should reread it before I speak about it as if I understand ALL of it )
as far as economics and internationaal relations not being very good at explaining the past (I believe there should be a distinction between micro and macro economics, since it's taught that way to anyone who cares to study it) we CAN follow the history of the system we have and are using now. I agree that speculation about other systems become theoretical based on available data..
but we can SEE what is happening with what we're using now. We can look at the data that IS still published (which makes me always wonder why the M3 is no LONGER published) and draw fairly accurate conclusions about how the current system will continue to operate if sustained.
this recession was predictable to anyone really watching what was going on.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 02, 2010, 05:28:03 AM
this recession was predictable to anyone really watching what was going on.
Oh I'm sure there were quite a few groups out there who saw it coming. They just fell into 2 categories:
1) Those convinced they could profit from it.
2) Those rendered ineffective by the system, and who couldn't do anything about it (this includes those made not aware of the possibility of it happening).
Quote from: Telarus on September 02, 2010, 05:52:03 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 02, 2010, 05:28:03 AM
this recession was predictable to anyone really watching what was going on.
Oh I'm sure there were quite a few groups out there who saw it coming. They just fell into 2 categories:
1) Those convinced they could profit from it.
2) Those rendered ineffective by the system, and who couldn't do anything about it (this includes those made not aware of the possibility of it happening).
those convinced they could profit from it were the ones who (in casino speak) took the dark side bet that the betters would loose.
AIG was a dark side bet company if I'm understanding everything I've read correctly.
#2 sounds to me like people who didn't pay attention and didn't pull their money out in time and hedge better.
Quote(this includes those made not aware of the possibility of it happening).
I'm going to do my best to not sound like a dick here, and probably still fail..
but who the fuck said anyone had to make anyone else aware of the possibility of it happening?
isn't it everyone's responsibility?
Yes, because the common people are totally going to be aware that say, almost every bank in the country had taken investment insurance (not what its called but pretty much what it amounts too) out with AIG, and that AIG didn't have more than 1% of what would be needed to pay out on those policies once the real estate market tanked.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 02, 2010, 06:00:06 AM
Quote from: Telarus on September 02, 2010, 05:52:03 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 02, 2010, 05:28:03 AM
this recession was predictable to anyone really watching what was going on.
Oh I'm sure there were quite a few groups out there who saw it coming. They just fell into 2 categories:
1) Those convinced they could profit from it.
2) Those rendered ineffective by the system, and who couldn't do anything about it (this includes those made not aware of the possibility of it happening).
those convinced they could profit from it were the ones who (in casino speak) took the dark side bet that the betters would loose.
AIG was a dark side bet company if I'm understanding everything I've read correctly.
#2 sounds to me like people who didn't pay attention and didn't pull their money out in time and hedge better.
Quote(this includes those made not aware of the possibility of it happening).
I'm going to do my best to not sound like a dick here, and probably still fail..
but who the fuck said anyone had to make anyone else aware of the possibility of it happening?
isn't it everyone's responsibility?
I like you, but I haven't been on a cloud like the one you're on since the last time I did a hit of acid, 1971, I think.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 02, 2010, 07:19:11 AM
Yes, because the common people are totally going to be aware that say, almost every bank in the country had taken investment insurance (not what its called but pretty much what it amounts too) out with AIG, and that AIG didn't have more than 1% of what would be needed to pay out on those policies once the real estate market tanked.
Most local banks did fine. I think I remember just one or two local to my area being snatched up by larger ones with better capitalization. The rest were ok.
Who are these "common people" to whom you refer?
anyone not working in Banking?
Quote from: Cain on September 02, 2010, 05:05:21 AM
Even social sciences (in theory) should be held up to some clear minimum on the science half of the deal. Economics and International Relations (who have a lot of overlap, thanks to game theory and microeconomic modelling) are probably the two worst subjects when it comes to actually explaining the past or present, preferring instead to come up with a bunch of prescriptive theoretical models which align just barely with some facets of widely recognized phenomena.
Yes.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 02, 2010, 10:37:53 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 02, 2010, 06:00:06 AM
Quote from: Telarus on September 02, 2010, 05:52:03 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 02, 2010, 05:28:03 AM
this recession was predictable to anyone really watching what was going on.
Oh I'm sure there were quite a few groups out there who saw it coming. They just fell into 2 categories:
1) Those convinced they could profit from it.
2) Those rendered ineffective by the system, and who couldn't do anything about it (this includes those made not aware of the possibility of it happening).
those convinced they could profit from it were the ones who (in casino speak) took the dark side bet that the betters would loose.
AIG was a dark side bet company if I'm understanding everything I've read correctly.
#2 sounds to me like people who didn't pay attention and didn't pull their money out in time and hedge better.
Quote(this includes those made not aware of the possibility of it happening).
I'm going to do my best to not sound like a dick here, and probably still fail..
but who the fuck said anyone had to make anyone else aware of the possibility of it happening?
isn't it everyone's responsibility?
I like you, but I haven't been on a cloud like the one you're on since the last time I did a hit of acid, 1971, I think.
8 years before I was even born.. really your last time? you're not missing anything.. the quality is shit now.
If expecting people to pay attention to their own finances and what's going on in the global market (since it affects them) is a trippy expectation, then yeah.. I could see how someone could think I was licking the schnozberries.
I probably do expect more out of people than they're currently capable of. Maybe EVER capable of.
I can see my house from here.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 02, 2010, 04:59:59 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2010, 11:28:42 PM
In fact, if economics was a science, it would consist mostly of the study of human irrationality.
It's always been a social science, unless I've been vastly misinformed.
It only exists within a primate social structure.
insects and reptiles have no reason to ever consider currency as an option for survival.
I may be missing your point here.
mine is that economics IS a science. there are several "schools of thought" on the subject, but it is largely held (admittedly, by the same people who study it) as a social science.
I consider science to be a framework by which one describes and predicts actual reality, not a system of cognitive biases used to support whatever goddawful ideas make sense in the midst of an LSD trip. Therefore, not science. Which sucks, because if it were actually science maybe things wouldn't suck so much.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 02, 2010, 01:03:42 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 02, 2010, 10:37:53 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 02, 2010, 06:00:06 AM
Quote from: Telarus on September 02, 2010, 05:52:03 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 02, 2010, 05:28:03 AM
this recession was predictable to anyone really watching what was going on.
Oh I'm sure there were quite a few groups out there who saw it coming. They just fell into 2 categories:
1) Those convinced they could profit from it.
2) Those rendered ineffective by the system, and who couldn't do anything about it (this includes those made not aware of the possibility of it happening).
those convinced they could profit from it were the ones who (in casino speak) took the dark side bet that the betters would loose.
AIG was a dark side bet company if I'm understanding everything I've read correctly.
#2 sounds to me like people who didn't pay attention and didn't pull their money out in time and hedge better.
Quote(this includes those made not aware of the possibility of it happening).
I'm going to do my best to not sound like a dick here, and probably still fail..
but who the fuck said anyone had to make anyone else aware of the possibility of it happening?
isn't it everyone's responsibility?
I like you, but I haven't been on a cloud like the one you're on since the last time I did a hit of acid, 1971, I think.
8 years before I was even born.. really your last time? you're not missing anything.. the quality is shit now.
If expecting people to pay attention to their own finances and what's going on in the global market (since it affects them) is a trippy expectation, then yeah.. I could see how someone could think I was licking the schnozberries.
I probably do expect more out of people than they're currently capable of. Maybe EVER capable of.
I can see my house from here.
So from your high moral ground you think every average person should have been able to see everything happening in the economic industry, even though people educated in the field and many others who have first hand and inside knowledge didn't see it.
You want the average person to understand the global market?
You must be very wealthy indeed with all of this knowledge you possess.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 02, 2010, 01:08:42 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 02, 2010, 01:03:42 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 02, 2010, 10:37:53 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 02, 2010, 06:00:06 AM
Quote from: Telarus on September 02, 2010, 05:52:03 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 02, 2010, 05:28:03 AM
this recession was predictable to anyone really watching what was going on.
Oh I'm sure there were quite a few groups out there who saw it coming. They just fell into 2 categories:
1) Those convinced they could profit from it.
2) Those rendered ineffective by the system, and who couldn't do anything about it (this includes those made not aware of the possibility of it happening).
those convinced they could profit from it were the ones who (in casino speak) took the dark side bet that the betters would loose.
AIG was a dark side bet company if I'm understanding everything I've read correctly.
#2 sounds to me like people who didn't pay attention and didn't pull their money out in time and hedge better.
Quote(this includes those made not aware of the possibility of it happening).
I'm going to do my best to not sound like a dick here, and probably still fail..
but who the fuck said anyone had to make anyone else aware of the possibility of it happening?
isn't it everyone's responsibility?
I like you, but I haven't been on a cloud like the one you're on since the last time I did a hit of acid, 1971, I think.
8 years before I was even born.. really your last time? you're not missing anything.. the quality is shit now.
If expecting people to pay attention to their own finances and what's going on in the global market (since it affects them) is a trippy expectation, then yeah.. I could see how someone could think I was licking the schnozberries.
I probably do expect more out of people than they're currently capable of. Maybe EVER capable of.
I can see my house from here.
So from your high moral ground you think every average person should have been able to see everything happening in the economic industry, even though people educated in the field and many others who have first hand and inside knowledge didn't see it.
You want the average person to understand the global market?
You must be very wealthy indeed with all of this knowledge you possess.
I did liquidate my 401k in 2007. It was out of necessity, and the taxes were a bitch.
I take no moral ground.
I did expect the children of the children of the depression to maybe have learned something from their parents.
I was disappointed.
not much point in armchair quarterbacking it now.. I only hope this one taught people to look closer at what's going on and not get into so much damn debt.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 02, 2010, 01:17:50 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 02, 2010, 01:08:42 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 02, 2010, 01:03:42 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 02, 2010, 10:37:53 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 02, 2010, 06:00:06 AM
Quote from: Telarus on September 02, 2010, 05:52:03 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 02, 2010, 05:28:03 AM
this recession was predictable to anyone really watching what was going on.
Oh I'm sure there were quite a few groups out there who saw it coming. They just fell into 2 categories:
1) Those convinced they could profit from it.
2) Those rendered ineffective by the system, and who couldn't do anything about it (this includes those made not aware of the possibility of it happening).
those convinced they could profit from it were the ones who (in casino speak) took the dark side bet that the betters would loose.
AIG was a dark side bet company if I'm understanding everything I've read correctly.
#2 sounds to me like people who didn't pay attention and didn't pull their money out in time and hedge better.
Quote(this includes those made not aware of the possibility of it happening).
I'm going to do my best to not sound like a dick here, and probably still fail..
but who the fuck said anyone had to make anyone else aware of the possibility of it happening?
isn't it everyone's responsibility?
I like you, but I haven't been on a cloud like the one you're on since the last time I did a hit of acid, 1971, I think.
8 years before I was even born.. really your last time? you're not missing anything.. the quality is shit now.
If expecting people to pay attention to their own finances and what's going on in the global market (since it affects them) is a trippy expectation, then yeah.. I could see how someone could think I was licking the schnozberries.
I probably do expect more out of people than they're currently capable of. Maybe EVER capable of.
I can see my house from here.
So from your high moral ground you think every average person should have been able to see everything happening in the economic industry, even though people educated in the field and many others who have first hand and inside knowledge didn't see it.
You want the average person to understand the global market?
You must be very wealthy indeed with all of this knowledge you possess.
I did liquidate my 401k in 2007. It was out of necessity, and the taxes were a bitch.
I take no moral ground.
I did expect the children of the children of the depression to maybe have learned something from their parents.
I was disappointed.
not much point in armchair quarterbacking it now.. I only hope this one taught people to look closer at what's going on and not get into so much damn debt.
Hell of a dodge, there.
So is your portfolio in the hundreds of millions?
Staying out of debt has nothing to do with understanding the global market.
I suppose buying a home really is a silly thing.
Quote from: Kai on September 02, 2010, 01:05:10 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 02, 2010, 04:59:59 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2010, 11:28:42 PM
In fact, if economics was a science, it would consist mostly of the study of human irrationality.
It's always been a social science, unless I've been vastly misinformed.
It only exists within a primate social structure.
insects and reptiles have no reason to ever consider currency as an option for survival.
I may be missing your point here.
mine is that economics IS a science. there are several "schools of thought" on the subject, but it is largely held (admittedly, by the same people who study it) as a social science.
I consider science to be a framework by which one describes and predicts actual reality, not a system of cognitive biases used to support whatever goddawful ideas make sense in the midst of an LSD trip. Therefore, not science. Which sucks, because if it were actually science maybe things wouldn't suck so much.
do you consider psychology and sociology to be sciences then since they obviously predict all possible human behavior?
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 02, 2010, 01:23:43 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 02, 2010, 01:17:50 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 02, 2010, 01:08:42 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 02, 2010, 01:03:42 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 02, 2010, 10:37:53 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 02, 2010, 06:00:06 AM
Quote from: Telarus on September 02, 2010, 05:52:03 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 02, 2010, 05:28:03 AM
this recession was predictable to anyone really watching what was going on.
Oh I'm sure there were quite a few groups out there who saw it coming. They just fell into 2 categories:
1) Those convinced they could profit from it.
2) Those rendered ineffective by the system, and who couldn't do anything about it (this includes those made not aware of the possibility of it happening).
those convinced they could profit from it were the ones who (in casino speak) took the dark side bet that the betters would loose.
AIG was a dark side bet company if I'm understanding everything I've read correctly.
#2 sounds to me like people who didn't pay attention and didn't pull their money out in time and hedge better.
Quote(this includes those made not aware of the possibility of it happening).
I'm going to do my best to not sound like a dick here, and probably still fail..
but who the fuck said anyone had to make anyone else aware of the possibility of it happening?
isn't it everyone's responsibility?
I like you, but I haven't been on a cloud like the one you're on since the last time I did a hit of acid, 1971, I think.
8 years before I was even born.. really your last time? you're not missing anything.. the quality is shit now.
If expecting people to pay attention to their own finances and what's going on in the global market (since it affects them) is a trippy expectation, then yeah.. I could see how someone could think I was licking the schnozberries.
I probably do expect more out of people than they're currently capable of. Maybe EVER capable of.
I can see my house from here.
So from your high moral ground you think every average person should have been able to see everything happening in the economic industry, even though people educated in the field and many others who have first hand and inside knowledge didn't see it.
You want the average person to understand the global market?
You must be very wealthy indeed with all of this knowledge you possess.
I did liquidate my 401k in 2007. It was out of necessity, and the taxes were a bitch.
I take no moral ground.
I did expect the children of the children of the depression to maybe have learned something from their parents.
I was disappointed.
not much point in armchair quarterbacking it now.. I only hope this one taught people to look closer at what's going on and not get into so much damn debt.
Hell of a dodge, there.
So is your portfolio in the hundreds of millions?
Staying out of debt has nothing to do with understanding the global market.
I suppose buying a home really is a silly thing.
didn't mean for it to be a dodge.
No, I'm not wealthy in the sense you mean. I was born into an upper lower class family of the 70's who didn't know shit about much of anything, or care.
I've only been able to begin building wealth for the last 5 years, and even that is always on shaky ground should something catastrophic happen.
I'm upside down on my house and my sister is trying to convince me to short sale it like she did, but I'm not convinced that's the best route. I never intended to use it as a charge card like a lot of other people did. I want it to be a home for my son should he decide to move to the states.
no, Im not rich. Does this change your opinion?
Change my opinion? Wasn't aware I had one. What I was doing was attempting to point out how much nonsense you were spouting about how even the average person should all about economics and the global market.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 02, 2010, 01:58:55 PM
Change my opinion? Wasn't aware I had one. What I was doing was attempting to point out how much nonsense you were spouting about how even the average person should all about economics and the global market.
ah. If you're investing money and expecting a return, outside of a savings account, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect you to know WTF is going on.
Or at the very least be paying an accountant that isn't blowing rainbows up your ass.
Again, I realize I may be expecting far too much from people. I AM hoping this recession causes people to take better care of their finances, and to teach their children how to do so as well.
I gotta say that so far, DP sounds pretty reasonable as long as the word "libertarian" is left out of the equation.
I have very little sympathy for those who bury themselves in debt without understanding what they're doing. The information is freely available, and while it may be unrealistic to expect people not to be lazy and greedy it doesn't mean that those traits should be supported or encouraged in any way. I could see the recession coming and made appropriate decisions about how to treat my financial and employment situations (again, based on freely available information) and even if I hadn't stumbled into my current awesome job I was still in a position of neutrality at worst and maybe even still getting ahead a little while everyone around me was losing their asses. And I have no formal education in such matters, barely understand the concepts behind finance, and do not typically count it as a subject of interest, so as far as I'm concerned if I can keep myself from becoming debt-ridden and stuck in a bad situation, anyone can do it.
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 02, 2010, 03:04:52 PM
I gotta say that so far, DP sounds pretty reasonable as long as the word "libertarian" is left out of the equation.
I have very little sympathy for those who bury themselves in debt without understanding what they're doing. The information is freely available, and while it may be unrealistic to expect people not to be lazy and greedy it doesn't mean that those traits should be supported or encouraged in any way. I could see the recession coming and made appropriate decisions about how to treat my financial and employment situations (again, based on freely available information) and even if I hadn't stumbled into my current awesome job I was still in a position of neutrality at worst and maybe even still getting ahead a little while everyone around me was losing their asses. And I have no formal education in such matters, barely understand the concepts behind finance, and do not typically count it as a subject of interest, so as far as I'm concerned if I can keep myself from becoming debt-ridden and stuck in a bad situation, anyone can do it.
Oh, I agree with this. My only point was expecting the average person to understand economics is over reaching. Avoiding debt requires no special education. I own a house and a car, and that is the only debt I have. I bought a double wide for $32K to avoid being overly in debt and to keep my payments under control.
I guess my point is that you don't really have to understand all of the fine points of economics in order to make sound economic decisions. Buying a house that's not overvalued is a good reason to be in debt. Buying a 50" flat screen plasma TV on your credit card is horrifyingly retarded.
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 02, 2010, 03:18:08 PM
I guess my point is that you don't really have to understand all of the fine points of economics in order to make sound economic decisions. Buying a house that's not overvalued is a good reason to be in debt. Buying a 50" flat screen plasma TV on your credit card is horrifyingly retarded.
Yeah, I have no credit cards and I flat refuse them when offered. If I don't have it I don't spend it.
That's how I operate (I use a visa debit card for stuff you can't do without a card) and it literally boggles my mind that almost everyone I know thinks it's weird or funny or quaint that I live within my means.
Many of them also frequently want to know how it is that I manage to live better on 30K a year than they do on 75K. I don't bother making the connection for them. Now that I'm pulling 45K and have virtually no expenses while on the ship, I can pretty much live like a goddamn king AND save money like it's going out of style, rather than deciding that making an extra 15K a year means I should find a way to spend an extra 20K a year.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 02, 2010, 01:28:11 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 02, 2010, 01:05:10 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 02, 2010, 04:59:59 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2010, 11:28:42 PM
In fact, if economics was a science, it would consist mostly of the study of human irrationality.
It's always been a social science, unless I've been vastly misinformed.
It only exists within a primate social structure.
insects and reptiles have no reason to ever consider currency as an option for survival.
I may be missing your point here.
mine is that economics IS a science. there are several "schools of thought" on the subject, but it is largely held (admittedly, by the same people who study it) as a social science.
I consider science to be a framework by which one describes and predicts actual reality, not a system of cognitive biases used to support whatever goddawful ideas make sense in the midst of an LSD trip. Therefore, not science. Which sucks, because if it were actually science maybe things wouldn't suck so much.
do you consider psychology and sociology to be sciences then since they obviously predict all possible human behavior?
They actually attempt to predict and explain human behavior using evidence, and while in infancy and not very well developed, are resting far more under the category of science than economics is.
QuoteI gotta say that so far, DP sounds pretty reasonable
:lulz:
It's a testament to the fact that, while growing old is mandatory, growing UP is an option, that I found this the funniest damn thing I've read all week.
Quote from: Kai on September 02, 2010, 03:37:00 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 02, 2010, 01:28:11 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 02, 2010, 01:05:10 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 02, 2010, 04:59:59 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2010, 11:28:42 PM
In fact, if economics was a science, it would consist mostly of the study of human irrationality.
It's always been a social science, unless I've been vastly misinformed.
It only exists within a primate social structure.
insects and reptiles have no reason to ever consider currency as an option for survival.
I may be missing your point here.
mine is that economics IS a science. there are several "schools of thought" on the subject, but it is largely held (admittedly, by the same people who study it) as a social science.
I consider science to be a framework by which one describes and predicts actual reality, not a system of cognitive biases used to support whatever goddawful ideas make sense in the midst of an LSD trip. Therefore, not science. Which sucks, because if it were actually science maybe things wouldn't suck so much.
do you consider psychology and sociology to be sciences then since they obviously predict all possible human behavior?
They actually attempt to predict and explain human behavior using evidence, and while in infancy and not very well developed, are resting far more under the category of science than economics is.
I'm not saying that John Maynard Keynes wasn't some sort of voodoo magician or that his economics isn't shit, but you're basically discounting a pretty extensively studied subject because it doesn't conform to what you think a science should be or be able to predict.
paper and asset bubbles are pretty easy to predict under the Keynesian system we've been using. There were plenty of people predicting this crash, but you didn't hear a peep out of the Treasury or the Fed for a very good reason.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c-VojI6awc&feature=related
I listen to this guy more than anyone else. He's one of the people that seemed to be making the most sense to me since I first heard him.
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 02, 2010, 03:29:40 PM
That's how I operate (I use a visa debit card for stuff you can't do without a card) and it literally boggles my mind that almost everyone I know thinks it's weird or funny or quaint that I live within my means.
Many of them also frequently want to know how it is that I manage to live better on 30K a year than they do on 75K. I don't bother making the connection for them. Now that I'm pulling 45K and have virtually no expenses while on the ship, I can pretty much live like a goddamn king AND save money like it's going out of style, rather than deciding that making an extra 15K a year means I should find a way to spend an extra 20K a year.
I use a credit card, but I never allow the entire balance to exceed my savings account.
It's just too damn convenient.
Quote from: Cain on September 02, 2010, 05:05:21 AM
Even social sciences (in theory) should be held up to some clear minimum on the science half of the deal. Economics and International Relations (who have a lot of overlap, thanks to game theory and microeconomic modelling) are probably the two worst subjects when it comes to actually explaining the past or present, preferring instead to come up with a bunch of prescriptive theoretical models which align just barely with some facets of widely recognized phenomena.
I am having trouble finding the actual article on the game theory program that I initially read and led me to others..
but this site is a good start for anyone willing to put the time into reading things you didn't question before you read them.
http://brembs.net/evolution/ipd.html
I'm still working on rediscovering the better links..
the internet is a wasteland.
http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/internal?st=print&id=104052668&path=/news/local (http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/internal?st=print&id=104052668&path=/news/local)
QuoteFirefighters watch as home burns to the ground
Originally printed at http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html
By Reporter - Jason Hibbs
By Photojournalist - Mark Owen
September 30, 2010
OBION COUNTY, Tenn. - Imagine your home catches fire but the local fire department won't respond, then watches it burn. That's exactly what happened to a local family tonight.
A local neighborhood is furious after firefighters watched as an Obion County, Tennessee, home burned to the ground.
The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late. They wouldn't do anything to stop his house from burning.
Each year, Obion County residents must pay $75 if they want fire protection from the city of South Fulton. But the Cranicks did not pay.
The mayor said if homeowners don't pay, they're out of luck.
Hooray for the Free Market!
:horrormirth:
Quote from: Remington on October 01, 2010, 07:42:29 PM
http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/internal?st=print&id=104052668&path=/news/local (http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/internal?st=print&id=104052668&path=/news/local)
QuoteFirefighters watch as home burns to the ground
Originally printed at http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html
By Reporter - Jason Hibbs
By Photojournalist - Mark Owen
September 30, 2010
OBION COUNTY, Tenn. - Imagine your home catches fire but the local fire department won't respond, then watches it burn. That's exactly what happened to a local family tonight.
A local neighborhood is furious after firefighters watched as an Obion County, Tennessee, home burned to the ground.
The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late. They wouldn't do anything to stop his house from burning.
Each year, Obion County residents must pay $75 if they want fire protection from the city of South Fulton. But the Cranicks did not pay.
The mayor said if homeowners don't pay, they're out of luck.
Hooray for the Free Market!
:horrormirth:
LET'S HEAR IT FOR LIBERTARIANISM/ARARCHISM/MINARCHISM!
:lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 01, 2010, 07:44:10 PM
Quote from: Remington on October 01, 2010, 07:42:29 PM
http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/internal?st=print&id=104052668&path=/news/local (http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/internal?st=print&id=104052668&path=/news/local)
QuoteFirefighters watch as home burns to the ground
Originally printed at http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html
By Reporter - Jason Hibbs
By Photojournalist - Mark Owen
September 30, 2010
OBION COUNTY, Tenn. - Imagine your home catches fire but the local fire department won't respond, then watches it burn. That's exactly what happened to a local family tonight.
A local neighborhood is furious after firefighters watched as an Obion County, Tennessee, home burned to the ground.
The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late. They wouldn't do anything to stop his house from burning.
Each year, Obion County residents must pay $75 if they want fire protection from the city of South Fulton. But the Cranicks did not pay.
The mayor said if homeowners don't pay, they're out of luck.
Hooray for the Free Market!
:horrormirth:
LET'S HEAR IT FOR LIBERTARIANISM/ARARCHISM/MINARCHISM!
:lulz:
WOO!
:lulz:
this incident had absolutely nothing to do with libertarianism.
FTR: they should have put out the fire and then worked out some way for him to pay the fee. In all actuality, the government shouldn't be charging "fees" for this sort of thing the way a private business would. It should be a tax collected automatically. If it had been run by a private business, they would have put out the fire and charged him for it. This was a failure of the government of the town, as it was a government run fire department. Government should not be run like a business.
using this as some sort of fuel for fire against libertarianism shows lack of understanding.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 06:51:18 PM
this incident had absolutely nothing to do with libertarianism.
FTR: they should have put out the fire and then worked out some way for him to pay the fee. In all actuality, the government shouldn't be charging "fees" for this sort of thing the way a private business would. It should be a tax collected automatically. If it had been run by a private business, they would have put out the fire and charged him for it. This was a failure of the government of the town, as it was a government run fire department. Government should not be run like a business.
using this as some sort of fuel for fire against libertarianism shows lack of understanding.
User fees are a staple of the LP.
i wouldn't say that the gov't was being run like a business here.
if it were, it would have taken advantage of the fact that it had the fellow by the short hairs, and arrived in their trucks with a handheld card swiper demanding that he pay some outrageous late fee on his annual cost if he wanted service...
they were simply acting like dicks, from this little article here...
i'm curious.... did the family know that they were required to pay this fee if they wanted protection from the fire department? (i would assume they did)
how does this sort of policy affect fire insurance payout?
did this guy do something to piss off the local officials? i would think that they would have sympathy and/or business greed in this situation, rather than be belligerent, unless they just had it out for the guy...
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 06:58:04 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 06:51:18 PM
this incident had absolutely nothing to do with libertarianism.
FTR: they should have put out the fire and then worked out some way for him to pay the fee. In all actuality, the government shouldn't be charging "fees" for this sort of thing the way a private business would. It should be a tax collected automatically. If it had been run by a private business, they would have put out the fire and charged him for it. This was a failure of the government of the town, as it was a government run fire department. Government should not be run like a business.
using this as some sort of fuel for fire against libertarianism shows lack of understanding.
User fees are a staple of the LP.
for private companies, not government services.
if there had been a private fire company available, they would have put it out like he asked and charged him for it.
of course, no one in his right mind would start a private fire protection company in an unincorporated neighborhood adjacent to an existing town since the town could forcibly annex the neighborhood at any time, and then take over all such services by fiat, and because the county fire company might decide to waive its $75 "fee" at any time, and instead subsist on its tax revenues, something no private competitor could do, and thus run the private company out of business overnight.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 07:01:59 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 06:58:04 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 06:51:18 PM
this incident had absolutely nothing to do with libertarianism.
FTR: they should have put out the fire and then worked out some way for him to pay the fee. In all actuality, the government shouldn't be charging "fees" for this sort of thing the way a private business would. It should be a tax collected automatically. If it had been run by a private business, they would have put out the fire and charged him for it. This was a failure of the government of the town, as it was a government run fire department. Government should not be run like a business.
using this as some sort of fuel for fire against libertarianism shows lack of understanding.
User fees are a staple of the LP.
for private companies, not government services.
if there had been a private fire company available, they would have put it out like he asked and charged him for it.
of course, no one in his right mind would start a private fire protection company in an unincorporated neighborhood adjacent to an existing town since the town could forcibly annex the neighborhood at any time, and then take over all such services by fiat, and because the county fire company might decide to waive its $75 "fee" at any time, and instead subsist on its tax revenues, something no private competitor could do, and thus run the private company out of business overnight.
Well, this is typical American half-assery. Semi-private means "you get fucked by both".
Also, there are some functions best run entirely public. Corporations aren't necessarily the best answer for every problem, no matter what the LPers and/or Teabaggers claim.
Quote from: Iptuous on October 06, 2010, 07:01:15 PM
i wouldn't say that the gov't was being run like a business here.
if it were, it would have taken advantage of the fact that it had the fellow by the short hairs, and arrived in their trucks with a handheld card swiper demanding that he pay some outrageous late fee on his annual cost if he wanted service...
they were simply acting like dicks, from this little article here...
i'm curious.... did the family know that they were required to pay this fee if they wanted protection from the fire department? (i would assume they did)
how does this sort of policy affect fire insurance payout?
did this guy do something to piss off the local officials? i would think that they would have sympathy and/or business greed in this situation, rather than be belligerent, unless they just had it out for the guy...
the government charging a fee for service rather than taxing it as they're "allowed" to do makes it resemble a business, even though it isn't.
Incidentally, If he'd "forgotten" to pay his property taxes and the fire department was paid out of them, this wouldn't have happened, because they would have put out the fire and taken both house and property away from him for "back taxes".
He'd still be out of the house.
Luckily he still has the property.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 07:05:38 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 07:01:59 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 06:58:04 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 06:51:18 PM
this incident had absolutely nothing to do with libertarianism.
FTR: they should have put out the fire and then worked out some way for him to pay the fee. In all actuality, the government shouldn't be charging "fees" for this sort of thing the way a private business would. It should be a tax collected automatically. If it had been run by a private business, they would have put out the fire and charged him for it. This was a failure of the government of the town, as it was a government run fire department. Government should not be run like a business.
using this as some sort of fuel for fire against libertarianism shows lack of understanding.
User fees are a staple of the LP.
for private companies, not government services.
if there had been a private fire company available, they would have put it out like he asked and charged him for it.
of course, no one in his right mind would start a private fire protection company in an unincorporated neighborhood adjacent to an existing town since the town could forcibly annex the neighborhood at any time, and then take over all such services by fiat, and because the county fire company might decide to waive its $75 "fee" at any time, and instead subsist on its tax revenues, something no private competitor could do, and thus run the private company out of business overnight.
Well, this is typical American half-assery. Semi-private means "you get fucked by both".
Also, there are some functions best run entirely public. Corporations aren't necessarily the best answer for every problem, no matter what the LPers and/or Teabaggers claim.
what the hell are you talking about Howl? I'm saying this should NOT be a pay for service OPTION. It should be taxed the same way every other fucking place does it.
this issue being used as a condemnation of libertarianism is absurd as there was NO market option even available and the fire dept was government run.
This was a problem of failed government not properly extending services that should be in place for everyone.
you're confusing me with the LP types who want to abolish municipal fire departments. I think that's just fucking silly. But I do think that if a group of homeowners want to band together and pay a private company to provide fire protection, that should be their option and they should be given the tax break for it.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 07:12:44 PM
what the hell are you talking about Howl? I'm saying this should NOT be a pay for service OPTION. It should be taxed the same way every other fucking place does it.
So, you're not actually a member of the Libertarian Party, right?
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 07:12:44 PM
this issue being used as a condemnation of libertarianism is absurd as there was NO market option even available and the fire dept was government run.
This was a problem of failed government not properly extending services that should be in place for everyone.
you're confusing me with the LP types who want to abolish municipal fire departments. I think that's just fucking silly. But I do think that if a group of homeowners want to band together and pay a private company to provide fire protection, that should be their option and they should be given the tax break for it.
Which, of course, shorts the other communities around them. So the rich get top-notch fire protection, and the poor get whatever they can scrape together, given less funds available in a given region.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 07:15:35 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 07:12:44 PM
what the hell are you talking about Howl? I'm saying this should NOT be a pay for service OPTION. It should be taxed the same way every other fucking place does it.
So, you're not actually a member of the Libertarian Party, right?
Had to hold my nose and register Republican actually. Closed primary state. LP has little to no influence as a party.
I like the Republican Party of Florida about as much as I like Democrats, but there's some local groups here doing a good job of getting elected to local positions and influencing decisions within the party, like the audit that just uncovered a lot of *gasp* fraud and corruption by major players. I truly have no hopes of anything really changing.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 07:15:35 PM
Which, of course, shorts the other communities around them. So the rich get top-notch fire protection, and the poor get whatever they can scrape together, given less funds available in a given region.
Realistically, the government would find a way to get their money one way or another. And you'd probably only see it being used by ultra rich who want a much faster response time or privacy should a fire break out.
There'd be as much a short to the other communities as there are from the rich employing private security instead of having to rely on the police.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 07:31:13 PM
Had to hold my nose and register Republican actually. Closed primary state. LP has little to no influence as a party.
I used to register republican, so I could volunteer to "help" their campaigns.
But enjoy your splintering, nutjobbery-ridden party. I can see the attraction. Christine O'Donnel and the others are fucking hilarious.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 07:31:13 PM
Realistically, the government would find a way to get their money one way or another. And you'd probably only see it being used by ultra rich who want a much faster response time or privacy should a fire break out.
There'd be as much a short to the other communities as there are from the rich employing private security instead of having to rely on the police.
So your argument is that firefighters in the private sector take too long?
And link to rich neighborhoods having private security that can actually make arrests?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 07:37:14 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 07:31:13 PM
Had to hold my nose and register Republican actually. Closed primary state. LP has little to no influence as a party.
I used to register republican, so I could volunteer to "help" their campaigns.
But enjoy your splintering, nutjobbery-ridden party. I can see the attraction. Christine O'Donnel and the others are fucking hilarious.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 07:31:13 PM
Realistically, the government would find a way to get their money one way or another. And you'd probably only see it being used by ultra rich who want a much faster response time or privacy should a fire break out.
There'd be as much a short to the other communities as there are from the rich employing private security instead of having to rely on the police.
So your argument is that firefighters in the private sector take too long?
And link to rich neighborhoods having private security that can actually make arrests?
I'm more and more leaning toward just not voting, or at least voting for whoever will make me laugh the most.
and democrats elect nutjobs like O'Donnel who are just funny in a different way.
I think you meant public sector, but no that's not what I meant, I meant they would have one that served their community exclusively, and was closer than a public department. The cost of actually maintaining this service 24/7 would probably be astronomical though.
Private security is used more as a deterent. People with that kind of money usually get targeted for robbery. Or with Loliwood types, stalkers.
But a Class A license gives a security person police powers on the property they are protecting.
http://www.kcmo.org/police/Permits/PrivateSecurityOfficers/index.htm
[EDIT] That's Missouri, laws may and probably do vary by state.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 07:47:29 PM
I think you meant public sector, but no that's not what I meant, I meant they would have one that served their community exclusively, and was closer than a public department. The cost of actually maintaining this service 24/7 would probably be astronomical though.
Private security is used more as a deterent. People with that kind of money usually get targeted for robbery. Or with Loliwood types, stalkers.
But a Class A license gives a security person police powers on the property they are protecting.
http://www.kcmo.org/police/Permits/PrivateSecurityOfficers/index.htm
Um, most robberies are committed against the poor. And if we allowed the foothills district in Tucson to "opt out" of fire protection, then the hive district would be totally fucked. If they want their own fire department, let them have it...but they should still be paying their taxes, just as people who send their kids to private schools need to pay their property taxes.
But I hope your party wins this November, because America deserves more republicanism, good and hard.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 07:52:56 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 07:47:29 PM
I think you meant public sector, but no that's not what I meant, I meant they would have one that served their community exclusively, and was closer than a public department. The cost of actually maintaining this service 24/7 would probably be astronomical though.
Private security is used more as a deterent. People with that kind of money usually get targeted for robbery. Or with Loliwood types, stalkers.
But a Class A license gives a security person police powers on the property they are protecting.
http://www.kcmo.org/police/Permits/PrivateSecurityOfficers/index.htm
Um, most robberies are committed against the poor. And if we allowed the foothills district in Tucson to "opt out" of fire protection, then the hive district would be totally fucked. If they want their own fire department, let them have it...but they should still be paying their taxes, just as people who send their kids to private schools need to pay their property taxes.
But I hope your party wins this November, because America deserves more republicanism, good and hard.
I'm aware most robberies are commited against the poor. That has nothing to do with what I said.
QuotePrivate security is used more as a deterent. People with that kind of money usually get targeted for robbery. Or with Loliwood types, stalkers.
Quotebut they should still be paying their taxes, just as people who send their kids to private schools need to pay their property taxes.
I agree with this, and accept that change in perspective.
Okay.
But I maintain that I hope your party wins, because America deserves it.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 08:04:01 PM
Okay.
But I maintain that I hope your party wins, because America deserves it.
the fireworks will be pretty in other parts of the country.
here it's just going to be boring. At least when Crist was still in as a Repub, we had a chance of getting a closet homosexual into a senate seat.
though, on reflection, I'm sure this would NOT have been a rare occurrence.
I wish we could give the Libertarians an island. They could take everything they own with them, and start their own perfect society.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on October 06, 2010, 08:07:02 PM
I wish we could give the Libertarians an island. They could take everything they own with them, and start their own perfect society.
I hear the Aleutians aren't in use.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 08:06:54 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 08:04:01 PM
Okay.
But I maintain that I hope your party wins, because America deserves it.
the fireworks will be pretty in other parts of the country.
here it's just going to be boring. At least when Crist was still in as a Repub, we had a chance of getting a closet homosexual into a senate seat.
though, on reflection, I'm sure this would NOT have been a rare occurrence.
Why? You've registered with the party that hates and fears Gays, and actively seeks to deny them basic civil liberties. Why would you be so interested in seeing a few sneak by?
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on October 06, 2010, 08:07:02 PM
I wish we could give the Libertarians an island. They could take everything they own with them, and start their own perfect society.
the funny part is, it would have to more resemble a commune to actually get off the ground. AWKWARD!
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 08:09:17 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 08:06:54 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 08:04:01 PM
Okay.
But I maintain that I hope your party wins, because America deserves it.
the fireworks will be pretty in other parts of the country.
here it's just going to be boring. At least when Crist was still in as a Repub, we had a chance of getting a closet homosexual into a senate seat.
though, on reflection, I'm sure this would NOT have been a rare occurrence.
Why? You've registered with the party that hates and fears Gays, and actively seeks to deny them basic civil liberties. Why would you be so interested in seeing a few sneak by?
You CAN be registered with a political party and not believe every god damn thing that they profess to believe.
personally, I think the social conservatives are nut jobs and want to stab them in the face with something sharp and red hot.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 08:07:53 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on October 06, 2010, 08:07:02 PM
I wish we could give the Libertarians an island. They could take everything they own with them, and start their own perfect society.
I hear the Aleutians aren't in use.
I can't understand why they don't just move to Somalia.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 08:11:27 PM
the funny part is, it would have to more resemble a commune to actually get off the ground. AWKWARD!
That ought to tell you something.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 08:11:27 PM
You CAN be registered with a political party and not believe every god damn thing that they profess to believe.
personally, I think the social conservatives are nut jobs and want to stab them in the face with something sharp and red hot.
And the fiscal conservatives? Oh, yeah, there aren't any. So you're in bed with the Gay-baiters and Islamaphobes. Let us know how that works out for you.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on October 06, 2010, 08:12:05 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 08:07:53 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on October 06, 2010, 08:07:02 PM
I wish we could give the Libertarians an island. They could take everything they own with them, and start their own perfect society.
I hear the Aleutians aren't in use.
I can't understand why they don't just move to Somalia.
As I understand it, the Somalis just aren't "pure" enough for an unrestrained, laissez faire economy.
Not sure why.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 08:13:41 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 08:11:27 PM
the funny part is, it would have to more resemble a commune to actually get off the ground. AWKWARD!
That ought to tell you something.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 08:11:27 PM
You CAN be registered with a political party and not believe every god damn thing that they profess to believe.
personally, I think the social conservatives are nut jobs and want to stab them in the face with something sharp and red hot.
And the fiscal conservatives? Oh, yeah, there aren't any. So you're in bed with the Gay-baiters and Islamaphobes. Let us know how that works out for you.
I'm kinda fucked no matter which party.
politically homeless.
but at least I get to laugh at the stupid shit that gets said about gay marriage and adoption and Duh War at the increasingly less frequent meetings I attend.
The splintering is real though. The party kicked out a couple guys here awhile back for actually saying things that made sense about foreign policy and the costs. The RPOF don't like dissent. Now a splinter faction was formed by the ones kicked out and they're drawing decent numbers of supporters from within.
It's all just monkey politics though, really.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 08:21:41 PM
I'm kinda fucked no matter which party.
So why not join the one that's philosophically opposed to universal civil liberties? :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 08:23:06 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 08:21:41 PM
I'm kinda fucked no matter which party.
So why not join the one that's philosophically opposed to universal civil liberties? :lulz:
For teh Irony
TM!!!!!!
Joke at the situation, not targeting particular people at this time. Because some people get mad when I don't want to piss them off.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 08:23:06 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 08:21:41 PM
I'm kinda fucked no matter which party.
So why not join the one that's philosophically opposed to universal civil liberties? :lulz:
at least there's a faction here I can agree with that wants the social conservatives to STFU.
The other party wants to make it illegal for me to say mean things to people.
I just can't get behind that.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 08:25:07 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 08:23:06 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 08:21:41 PM
I'm kinda fucked no matter which party.
So why not join the one that's philosophically opposed to universal civil liberties? :lulz:
at least there's a faction here I can agree with that wants the social conservatives to STFU.
The other party wants to make it illegal for me to say mean things to people.
I just can't get behind that.
Where did they do that? Honestly curious.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 08:25:49 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 08:25:07 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 08:23:06 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 08:21:41 PM
I'm kinda fucked no matter which party.
So why not join the one that's philosophically opposed to universal civil liberties? :lulz:
at least there's a faction here I can agree with that wants the social conservatives to STFU.
The other party wants to make it illegal for me to say mean things to people.
I just can't get behind that.
Where did they do that? Honestly curious.
Im not going to be able to cite any specific laws against speech here, YET. The Supreme Court of Canada shot one down last year. I think any that have come close have always been shot down, and they're likely to get shot down as unconstitutional if they ever do pass, but it would seem a natural progression of hate crime laws that make a crime worse if you were biased against someone for whatever reason, rather than just using the way we already rate crimes.
It's the politically correct branch of the Democratic party that pisses me off as much as the social conservatives in the Republican party.
in your case, if hate speech laws did pass, you'd be pretty properly fucked.
you hate everyone and say so all of the time. :D
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 08:36:40 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 08:25:49 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 08:25:07 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 08:23:06 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 08:21:41 PM
I'm kinda fucked no matter which party.
So why not join the one that's philosophically opposed to universal civil liberties? :lulz:
at least there's a faction here I can agree with that wants the social conservatives to STFU.
The other party wants to make it illegal for me to say mean things to people.
I just can't get behind that.
Where did they do that? Honestly curious.
Im not going to be able to cite any specific laws against speech here, YET. The Supreme Court of Canada shot one down last year. I think any that have come close have always been shot down, and they're likely to get shot down as unconstitutional if they ever do pass, but it would seem a natural progression of hate crime laws that make a crime worse if you were biased against someone for whatever reason, rather than just using the way we already rate crimes.
It's the politically correct branch of the Democratic party that pisses me off as much as the social conservatives in the Republican party.
in your case, if hate speech laws did pass, you'd be pretty properly fucked.
you hate everyone and say so all of the time. :D
1. So, no citations. It's a Rush Limbaugh thing, then?
2. WTF? How come nobody told me that the republicans and democrats function in Canada?
Sure the Dems may want more of my money to fail to help people with, but the GOP is in league with people that want to actively invade people's private lives... and they haven't acted in a fiscally responsible way either! If someone could show me a fiscally responsible, socially liberal party... I'd think that was awesome. Right now I feel like we have a choice between a glass of Lemonade with a little shit floating in it, and a glass of shit with a lemon on top. I'm not gonna drink either, but I'm not sure how anyone can justify the second option.
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 06, 2010, 08:39:27 PM
Sure the Dems may want more of my money to fail to help people with, but the GOP is in league with people that want to actively invade people's private lives... and they haven't acted in a fiscally responsible way either! If someone could show me a fiscally responsible, socially liberal party... I'd think that was awesome. Right now I feel like we have a choice between a glass of Lemonade with a little shit floating in it, and a glass of shit with a lemon on top. I'm not gonna drink either, but I'm not sure how anyone can justify the second option.
Motorcycle.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 08:38:26 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 08:36:40 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 08:25:49 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 08:25:07 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 08:23:06 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 08:21:41 PM
I'm kinda fucked no matter which party.
So why not join the one that's philosophically opposed to universal civil liberties? :lulz:
at least there's a faction here I can agree with that wants the social conservatives to STFU.
The other party wants to make it illegal for me to say mean things to people.
I just can't get behind that.
Where did they do that? Honestly curious.
Im not going to be able to cite any specific laws against speech here, YET. The Supreme Court of Canada shot one down last year. I think any that have come close have always been shot down, and they're likely to get shot down as unconstitutional if they ever do pass, but it would seem a natural progression of hate crime laws that make a crime worse if you were biased against someone for whatever reason, rather than just using the way we already rate crimes.
It's the politically correct branch of the Democratic party that pisses me off as much as the social conservatives in the Republican party.
in your case, if hate speech laws did pass, you'd be pretty properly fucked.
you hate everyone and say so all of the time. :D
1. So, no citations. It's a Rush Limbaugh thing, then?
2. WTF? How come nobody told me that the republicans and democrats function in Canada?
how come no one told you that similar branches of political thought exist in other countries?
I get the feeling you are a dick just because you like being a dick.
Don't get me wrong, I respect that, but I'll approach all future discussion with you with this in mind.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 08:40:52 PM
how come no one told you that similar branches of political thought exist in other countries?
Because I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh? OMFG! LIBRULS SOMEWHERE ELSE PASSED HATE SPEECH LAWS, SO THE DEMS WILL DO IT HERE! ZOMG!
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 08:40:52 PM
I get the feeling you are a dick just because you like being a dick.
Why? Because you made an asshole assertion, and then couldn't back it up? Bad Dok, no meathammer.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 08:40:52 PM
Don't get me wrong, I respect that, but I'll approach all future discussion with you with this in mind.
Or you could just fuck right off, since any opinion that differs from yours is "just being a dick". Seriously, die in a fucking fire.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 08:43:16 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 08:40:52 PM
how come no one told you that similar branches of political thought exist in other countries?
Because I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh? OMFG! LIBRULS SOMEWHERE ELSE PASSED HATE SPEECH LAWS, SO THE DEMS WILL DO IT HERE! ZOMG!
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 08:40:52 PM
I get the feeling you are a dick just because you like being a dick.
Why? Because you made an asshole assertion, and then couldn't back it up? Bad Dok, no meathammer.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 08:40:52 PM
Don't get me wrong, I respect that, but I'll approach all future discussion with you with this in mind.
Or you could just fuck right off, since any opinion that differs from yours is "just being a dick". Seriously, die in a fucking fire.
OMG HES A REPUBLICAN HE MUST LISTEN TO RUSH LIMBAUGH.
I can't site any laws currently on the books. Doesn't mean there isn't a faction that wants this sort of thing to be illegal, which is actually exactly what I said, not that there WAS, but that there were ones who WANTED to.
your #2 question wasn't an opinion at all, so I wasn't saying you were being a dick for disagreeing with me. Im not even sure we were disagreeing on anything.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 08:47:18 PM
OMG HES A REPUBLICAN HE MUST LISTEN TO RUSH LIMBAUGH.
You made a sensationalist accusation, then failed to back it up. That's Limbaughism at its finest.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 08:47:18 PM
I can't site any laws currently on the books. Doesn't mean there isn't a faction that wants this sort of thing to be illegal, which is actually exactly what I said, not that there WAS, but that there were ones who WANTED to.
There are republicans who want to make us all fuck fetuses to show how much we love them. I can't cite any laws, but that doesn't prove that there isn't a faction that wants this sort of thing to happen,
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 08:49:40 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 08:47:18 PM
OMG HES A REPUBLICAN HE MUST LISTEN TO RUSH LIMBAUGH.
You made a sensationalist accusation, then failed to back it up. That's Limbaughism at its finest.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 08:47:18 PM
I can't site any laws currently on the books. Doesn't mean there isn't a faction that wants this sort of thing to be illegal, which is actually exactly what I said, not that there WAS, but that there were ones who WANTED to.
There are republicans who want to make us all fuck fetuses to show how much we love them. I can't cite any laws, but that doesn't prove that there isn't a faction that wants this sort of thing to happen,
that's pretty good.
I bet you're a fuckin riot to hang with IRL. In fact, you remind me of a good friend of mine. He's got a good nose for shit and likes pointing it out.
A few people I know don't like him, he rubs them the wrong way. I think he's the tits.
Quote from: Remington on October 01, 2010, 07:42:29 PM
http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/internal?st=print&id=104052668&path=/news/local (http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/internal?st=print&id=104052668&path=/news/local)
QuoteFirefighters watch as home burns to the ground
Originally printed at http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html
By Reporter - Jason Hibbs
By Photojournalist - Mark Owen
September 30, 2010
OBION COUNTY, Tenn. - Imagine your home catches fire but the local fire department won't respond, then watches it burn. That's exactly what happened to a local family tonight.
A local neighborhood is furious after firefighters watched as an Obion County, Tennessee, home burned to the ground.
The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late. They wouldn't do anything to stop his house from burning.
Each year, Obion County residents must pay $75 if they want fire protection from the city of South Fulton. But the Cranicks did not pay.
The mayor said if homeowners don't pay, they're out of luck.
Hooray for the Free Market!
:horrormirth:
The best part about this was the house next door also got burnt through inaction by the fire department. And they
had paid.
Gosh, it's almost like there are some kinds of things where, even if you individually opt out, for whatever reason, then other people may still end up suffering because of your individual choice. If only we had a term and body of thought devoted to these kind of problems.....
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on October 06, 2010, 08:07:02 PM
I wish we could give the Libertarians an island. They could take everything they own with them, and start their own perfect society.
It's been done, with predictable results:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Minerva (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Minerva)
Wait a second... you would rather be with a party that has a fringe who want to control abortion, make us a 'Christian Nation', define marriage as heterosexual, put prayer in school, etc that with a party that has a fringe that wants to ban hate speech (a misguided but well intentioned concept).
Really?
I can see not being a Democrat because you don't like big government or lots of government programs etc... but because a crackpot minority wants to ban hate speech?
*twitch* *twitch*
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 06, 2010, 09:12:30 PM
Wait a second... you would rather be with a party that has a fringe who want to control abortion, make us a 'Christian Nation', define marriage as heterosexual, put prayer in school, etc that with a party that has a fringe that wants to ban hate speech (a misguided but well intentioned concept).
Really?
I can see not being a Democrat because you don't like big government or lots of government programs etc... but because a crackpot minority wants to ban hate speech?
*twitch* *twitch*
Beats thinking.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 09:00:42 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 08:49:40 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 08:47:18 PM
OMG HES A REPUBLICAN HE MUST LISTEN TO RUSH LIMBAUGH.
You made a sensationalist accusation, then failed to back it up. That's Limbaughism at its finest.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 08:47:18 PM
I can't site any laws currently on the books. Doesn't mean there isn't a faction that wants this sort of thing to be illegal, which is actually exactly what I said, not that there WAS, but that there were ones who WANTED to.
There are republicans who want to make us all fuck fetuses to show how much we love them. I can't cite any laws, but that doesn't prove that there isn't a faction that wants this sort of thing to happen,
that's pretty good.
I bet you're a fuckin riot to hang with IRL. In fact, you remind me of a good friend of mine. He's got a good nose for shit and likes pointing it out.
A few people I know don't like him, he rubs them the wrong way. I think he's the tits.
I am here for your amusement.
I notice, however, that I still haven't seen a cite referencing a politician trying to push through a hate speech bill. All I got was some stuff from Canada, because the dems are just the exact same as left-wing Canadians, or some shit.
I wonder why that is?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 09:33:46 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 09:00:42 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 08:49:40 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 08:47:18 PM
OMG HES A REPUBLICAN HE MUST LISTEN TO RUSH LIMBAUGH.
You made a sensationalist accusation, then failed to back it up. That's Limbaughism at its finest.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 08:47:18 PM
I can't site any laws currently on the books. Doesn't mean there isn't a faction that wants this sort of thing to be illegal, which is actually exactly what I said, not that there WAS, but that there were ones who WANTED to.
There are republicans who want to make us all fuck fetuses to show how much we love them. I can't cite any laws, but that doesn't prove that there isn't a faction that wants this sort of thing to happen,
that's pretty good.
I bet you're a fuckin riot to hang with IRL. In fact, you remind me of a good friend of mine. He's got a good nose for shit and likes pointing it out.
A few people I know don't like him, he rubs them the wrong way. I think he's the tits.
I am here for your amusement.
I notice, however, that I still haven't seen a cite referencing a politician trying to push through a hate speech bill. All I got was some stuff from Canada, because the dems are just the exact same as left-wing Canadians, or some shit.
I wonder why that is?
Maybe he confused Hate Crimes with Hate Speech.
Personally, I think Crime should be crime and you should get an equal sentence for your crime if your victim is the same gender preference/skin color or different... but hate crimes are about crimes, not speech.
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 06, 2010, 09:41:44 PM
Maybe he confused Hate Crimes with Hate Speech.
Personally, I think Crime should be crime and you should get an equal sentence for your crime if your victim is the same gender preference/skin color or different... but hate crimes are about crimes, not speech.
Interesting. So should ANY motive be considered in the sentencing of a crime?
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 06, 2010, 09:12:30 PM
Wait a second... you would rather be with a party that has a fringe who want to control abortion, make us a 'Christian Nation', define marriage as heterosexual, put prayer in school, etc that with a party that has a fringe that wants to ban hate speech (a misguided but well intentioned concept).
Really?
I can see not being a Democrat because you don't like big government or lots of government programs etc... but because a crackpot minority wants to ban hate speech?
*twitch* *twitch*
I only cited one of my reasons for not being in the Democratic party. I have more.
but it's is kind of like being against the republicans because a crack pot and vocal minority want's prayer in schools. There are plenty of better reasons to not like Republicans.
As to all the things you listed as being wanted by the religious right branch of the Repubs, I personally can't stand them, as I've already said. But you do nothing to marginalize their voice in the party from out side of it here, as you can't vote in the primary against those sorts unless you're registered with the party.
the fact is Im not going to completely agree with a lot either party puts out. There are rational democratic policies and there are rational republican policies. There are crazies in both.
Florida tends to lean republican locally in my city and my district so I figure it's better to have a say on whether we elect a douch bag or a turd sandwich.
Howl, I didn't say any bills had been written. I said there is an element in the Democratic party who wants that sort of thing. Never said there was a law. You asked for one and since there isn't one, obviously I cannot site it. I shouldn't have blanket condemned the entire democratic party for wanting this and pointed out that it's a small group of them.
It seems that it would fly though in that there seems to be a lot of blanket condemnation of groups of people going on here.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 09:43:32 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 06, 2010, 09:41:44 PM
Maybe he confused Hate Crimes with Hate Speech.
Personally, I think Crime should be crime and you should get an equal sentence for your crime if your victim is the same gender preference/skin color or different... but hate crimes are about crimes, not speech.
Interesting. So should ANY motive be considered in the sentencing of a crime?
they already are. and there are levels of crime (1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree, manslaughter, etc.) that cover if there was a motive at all. That should be sufficient and has been for years.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 09:51:50 PM
I only cited one of my reasons for not being in the Democratic party. I have more.
You didn't actually cite anything.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 09:51:50 PMHowl, I didn't say any bills had been written. I said there is an element in the Democratic party who wants that sort of thing.
Yeah, and you didn't back it up with a quote or citation.
But why let that stop you? Why not just chew on that shit sandwich, while hollering about some guy, somewhere, who wants to outlaw hate speech?
Why not side with the party that considers women property (Orrin Hatch, lol), Gays to be abberations and non-persons (Inhofe, Hatch, Butters, et al)? I mean, those things
actually being espoused are not nearly as bad as some alleged politician allegedly wanting to outlaw hate speech.
Like I've said, teh democratic party is no prize, but the GOP is a festering mass of everything that's been wrong with this country since William Jennings Bryant, and it honestly puzzles me why anyone with a functioning frontal lobe would vote for them, unless that person makes in excess of $350K/yr.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 09:57:26 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 09:43:32 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 06, 2010, 09:41:44 PM
Maybe he confused Hate Crimes with Hate Speech.
Personally, I think Crime should be crime and you should get an equal sentence for your crime if your victim is the same gender preference/skin color or different... but hate crimes are about crimes, not speech.
Interesting. So should ANY motive be considered in the sentencing of a crime?
they already are. and there are levels of crime (1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree, manslaughter, etc.) that cover if there was a motive at all. That should be sufficient and has been for years.
I was asking Ratatosk to clarify his statement...But since you're in, let me ask you this: IF there are motives involved, are any motives more serious than any others?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 10:00:24 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 09:57:26 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 09:43:32 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 06, 2010, 09:41:44 PM
Maybe he confused Hate Crimes with Hate Speech.
Personally, I think Crime should be crime and you should get an equal sentence for your crime if your victim is the same gender preference/skin color or different... but hate crimes are about crimes, not speech.
Interesting. So should ANY motive be considered in the sentencing of a crime?
they already are. and there are levels of crime (1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree, manslaughter, etc.) that cover if there was a motive at all. That should be sufficient and has been for years.
I was asking Ratatosk to clarify his statement...But since you're in, let me ask you this: IF there are motives involved, are any motives more serious than any others?
Never heard it asked that way, so I'd like to give this some thought before I commit to a view, but my initial response is that intent should be the most serious motive, and is if I'm not mistaken.
but I see what you're getting at and it just seems to cloud the water even more.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 10:05:29 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 10:00:24 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 09:57:26 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 09:43:32 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 06, 2010, 09:41:44 PM
Maybe he confused Hate Crimes with Hate Speech.
Personally, I think Crime should be crime and you should get an equal sentence for your crime if your victim is the same gender preference/skin color or different... but hate crimes are about crimes, not speech.
Interesting. So should ANY motive be considered in the sentencing of a crime?
they already are. and there are levels of crime (1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree, manslaughter, etc.) that cover if there was a motive at all. That should be sufficient and has been for years.
I was asking Ratatosk to clarify his statement...But since you're in, let me ask you this: IF there are motives involved, are any motives more serious than any others?
Never heard it asked that way, so I'd like to give this some thought before I commit to a view, but my initial response is that intent should be the most serious motive, and is if I'm not mistaken.
but I see what you're getting at and it just seems to cloud the water even more.
Legal issues are inherently cloudy, unless your name is Draco.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 09:43:32 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 06, 2010, 09:41:44 PM
Maybe he confused Hate Crimes with Hate Speech.
Personally, I think Crime should be crime and you should get an equal sentence for your crime if your victim is the same gender preference/skin color or different... but hate crimes are about crimes, not speech.
Interesting. So should ANY motive be considered in the sentencing of a crime?
Sure, but those should be based on the intent of the perpetrator. That is, Manslaughter and 1st, 2nd, 3rd degree murder etc.
If you PLAN to murder person X because of Money you are just as guilty of murder as someone who PLANNED to murder person X because he was Gay or Black.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 09:58:34 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 09:51:50 PM
I only cited one of my reasons for not being in the Democratic party. I have more.
You didn't actually cite anything.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 09:51:50 PMHowl, I didn't say any bills had been written. I said there is an element in the Democratic party who wants that sort of thing.
Yeah, and you didn't back it up with a quote or citation.
But why let that stop you? Why not just chew on that shit sandwich, while hollering about some guy, somewhere, who wants to outlaw hate speech?
Why not side with the party that considers women property (Orrin Hatch, lol), Gays to be abberations and non-persons (Inhofe, Hatch, Butters, et al)? I mean, those things actually being espoused are not nearly as bad as some alleged politician allegedly wanting to outlaw hate speech.
Like I've said, teh democratic party is no prize, but the GOP is a festering mass of everything that's been wrong with this country since William Jennings Bryant, and it honestly puzzles me why anyone with a functioning frontal lobe would vote for them, unless that person makes in excess of $350K/yr.
I didn't holler about any guy anywhere.
again, I can be a member of the party and still disagree with the fringes of the party.
just because there are people in the Democratic party who are also members of PETA, if you're a Democrat then you're on the side of animals = humans, amirite?
cite the Orrin Hatch lol if you would. Not that he doesn't think this way, I don't know much about the guy, but I'd find it an interesting read.
here's a quote from him I do agree with though.
Quote"So, if the Muslims own that property, that private property, and they want to build a mosque there, they should have the right to do so,"
that can be found here: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/republican-orrin-hatch-stands-up-for-cordoba-house-video.php
As I said, voting democrat locally is a loosing battle, as they never get elected here. I'm less interested in national politics than I am in local.
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 06, 2010, 10:15:50 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 09:43:32 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 06, 2010, 09:41:44 PM
Maybe he confused Hate Crimes with Hate Speech.
Personally, I think Crime should be crime and you should get an equal sentence for your crime if your victim is the same gender preference/skin color or different... but hate crimes are about crimes, not speech.
Interesting. So should ANY motive be considered in the sentencing of a crime?
Sure, but those should be based on the intent of the perpetrator. That is, Manslaughter and 1st, 2nd, 3rd degree murder etc.
If you PLAN to murder person X because of Money you are just as guilty of murder as someone who PLANNED to murder person X because he was Gay or Black.
this is what I've always thought of as the correct motorcycle.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 08:14:28 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on October 06, 2010, 08:12:05 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 08:07:53 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on October 06, 2010, 08:07:02 PM
I wish we could give the Libertarians an island. They could take everything they own with them, and start their own perfect society.
I hear the Aleutians aren't in use.
I can't understand why they don't just move to Somalia.
As I understand it, the Somalis just aren't "pure" enough for an unrestrained, laissez faire economy.
Not sure why.
Poor darkies. :cry: They don't know how to do it Right™, like the White Man does. Or would, if only Big Government would stop holding him down.
I don't think that Somila is an example of Libertarianism... I mean you can argue that its some form of anarchy (the chaotic lack of any sort of functioning government) but even that is different than Anarchism the political philosophy.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 08:47:18 PM
I can't site any laws currently on the books. Doesn't mean there isn't a faction that wants this sort of thing to be illegal, which is actually exactly what I said, not that there WAS, but that there were ones who WANTED to.
Listen. Speaking as a Republican, you are embarrassing me.
If you can't produce any citations (they don't have to be links; you can cite offline sources) then "if doesn't mean they don't exist" is an embarrassingly weak argument that undermines everything else you posit. What you are doing is presenting
hearsay as the support for your reasoning, which makes you look really foolish and uninformed.
Please, just don't. It makes us few other holdout Nixonians look bad.
Quote from: Remington on October 06, 2010, 09:04:17 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on October 06, 2010, 08:07:02 PM
I wish we could give the Libertarians an island. They could take everything they own with them, and start their own perfect society.
It's been done, with predictable results:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Minerva (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Minerva)
It doesn't sound like anyone ever actually lived there. It remained undeveloped and purely theoretical even to the date of its failure and reclamation by the Tongans.
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 06, 2010, 10:26:13 PM
I don't think that Somila is an example of Libertarianism... I mean you can argue that its some form of anarchy (the chaotic lack of any sort of functioning government) but even that is different than Anarchism the political philosophy.
No, but there's no government there to keep the cream from reaching the top.
I mean, just about any American with a little capital should be able to go there and live free, right? Maybe even take advantage of the situation to make their fortune... so why do all of the guys screaming about wanting a free market not go to Somalia and take advantage of theirs?
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 10:16:17 PM
As I said, voting democrat locally is a loosing battle, as they never get elected here. I'm less interested in national politics than I am in local.
Yes, if you don't vote like everyone else, you're wasting your vote. So you should vote for the gay-bashers and bigots.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 10:23:11 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 06, 2010, 10:15:50 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 09:43:32 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 06, 2010, 09:41:44 PM
Maybe he confused Hate Crimes with Hate Speech.
Personally, I think Crime should be crime and you should get an equal sentence for your crime if your victim is the same gender preference/skin color or different... but hate crimes are about crimes, not speech.
Interesting. So should ANY motive be considered in the sentencing of a crime?
Sure, but those should be based on the intent of the perpetrator. That is, Manslaughter and 1st, 2nd, 3rd degree murder etc.
If you PLAN to murder person X because of Money you are just as guilty of murder as someone who PLANNED to murder person X because he was Gay or Black.
this is what I've always thought of as the correct motorcycle.
Okay, if I murder someone out of revenge, I am on the same moral level as Nigel, who kills people for a flat fee?
(She does, you know. That's why there are no Shriners in Portland. The Moose Lodge had her kill them all.)
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 11:14:07 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 10:23:11 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 06, 2010, 10:15:50 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 09:43:32 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 06, 2010, 09:41:44 PM
Maybe he confused Hate Crimes with Hate Speech.
Personally, I think Crime should be crime and you should get an equal sentence for your crime if your victim is the same gender preference/skin color or different... but hate crimes are about crimes, not speech.
Interesting. So should ANY motive be considered in the sentencing of a crime?
Sure, but those should be based on the intent of the perpetrator. That is, Manslaughter and 1st, 2nd, 3rd degree murder etc.
If you PLAN to murder person X because of Money you are just as guilty of murder as someone who PLANNED to murder person X because he was Gay or Black.
this is what I've always thought of as the correct motorcycle.
Okay, if I murder someone out of revenge, I am on the same moral level as Nigel, who kills people for a flat fee?
(She does, you know. That's why there are no Shriners in Portland. The Moose Lodge had her kill them all.)
This SOUNDS like it ought to be a trick question, but according to my world view, it isn't, and the answer would be "yes."
Murder is wrong no matter who does it or why.
Even when I think otherwise.
According to MY personal world view.
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on October 06, 2010, 11:17:07 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 11:14:07 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 06, 2010, 10:23:11 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 06, 2010, 10:15:50 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 09:43:32 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 06, 2010, 09:41:44 PM
Maybe he confused Hate Crimes with Hate Speech.
Personally, I think Crime should be crime and you should get an equal sentence for your crime if your victim is the same gender preference/skin color or different... but hate crimes are about crimes, not speech.
Interesting. So should ANY motive be considered in the sentencing of a crime?
Sure, but those should be based on the intent of the perpetrator. That is, Manslaughter and 1st, 2nd, 3rd degree murder etc.
If you PLAN to murder person X because of Money you are just as guilty of murder as someone who PLANNED to murder person X because he was Gay or Black.
this is what I've always thought of as the correct motorcycle.
Okay, if I murder someone out of revenge, I am on the same moral level as Nigel, who kills people for a flat fee?
(She does, you know. That's why there are no Shriners in Portland. The Moose Lodge had her kill them all.)
This SOUNDS like it ought to be a trick question, but according to my world view, it isn't, and the answer would be "yes."
Murder is wrong no matter who does it or why.
Okay, I'll buy that. How about negligence?
Dancing Pickle knows he has bad brakes, and drives anyway. He runs over a small child in the street because his car won't stop. He's guilty of manslaughter, right (ie, accidental death caused by negligence or an illegal act)?
You can make a decent argument that hate crimes have the same moral level as non hate crimes, and vice versa.
But regardless of the morals, people who kill people in hate crimes in places where there are no hate crime laws don't get convicted of murder, they get convicted of assault with a deadly weapon or some other minor penalty and only get a couple years in jail, that is if the cops bother to investigate the crime at all.
Hate crime laws are vital in making sure local authorities actually do their goddamned job, instead of beating on the victim when a hate crime gets reported.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 06, 2010, 11:20:31 PM
But regardless of the morals, people who kill people in hate crimes in places where there are no hate crime laws don't get convicted of murder, they get convicted of assault with a deadly weapon or some other minor penalty and only get a couple years in jail, that is if the cops bother to investigate the crime at all.
wut
That's where it gets sticky.
Accidents can be horrible, and yeah he deserves to go to prison, but negligence causing a death isn't quite as bad as actively seeking to take a life.
Even if it were the monkey.
Of course, the difference is negligible.
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on October 06, 2010, 11:22:40 PM
That's where it gets sticky.
Accidents can be horrible, and yeah he deserves to go to prison, but negligence causing a death isn't quite as bad as actively seeking to take a life.
Even if it were the monkey.
Okay. So we check everyone's brakes, and we find that Ratatosk's brakes are also bad, but he hasn't hit anyone yet.
So we pitch him in jail for attempted murder/reckless endangerment.
I think I like this "motives don't matter" argument. We can throw everyone in jail.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 11:24:20 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on October 06, 2010, 11:22:40 PM
That's where it gets sticky.
Accidents can be horrible, and yeah he deserves to go to prison, but negligence causing a death isn't quite as bad as actively seeking to take a life.
Even if it were the monkey.
Okay. So we check everyone's brakes, and we find that Ratatosk's brakes are also bad, but he hasn't hit anyone yet.
So we pitch him in jail for attempted murder/reckless endangerment.
I think I like this "motives don't matter" argument. We can throw everyone in jail.
Wait, what? I wasn't making that argument. :?
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on October 06, 2010, 11:25:19 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 11:24:20 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on October 06, 2010, 11:22:40 PM
That's where it gets sticky.
Accidents can be horrible, and yeah he deserves to go to prison, but negligence causing a death isn't quite as bad as actively seeking to take a life.
Even if it were the monkey.
Okay. So we check everyone's brakes, and we find that Ratatosk's brakes are also bad, but he hasn't hit anyone yet.
So we pitch him in jail for attempted murder/reckless endangerment.
I think I like this "motives don't matter" argument. We can throw everyone in jail.
Wait, what? I wasn't making that argument. :?
Well, if motives don't matter, we only need consider the physical aspects of any case, with no other considerations. Ergo, if you have bad brakes, you are guilty of reckless endangerment at the very least.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 11:26:32 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on October 06, 2010, 11:25:19 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 11:24:20 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on October 06, 2010, 11:22:40 PM
That's where it gets sticky.
Accidents can be horrible, and yeah he deserves to go to prison, but negligence causing a death isn't quite as bad as actively seeking to take a life.
Even if it were the monkey.
Okay. So we check everyone's brakes, and we find that Ratatosk's brakes are also bad, but he hasn't hit anyone yet.
So we pitch him in jail for attempted murder/reckless endangerment.
I think I like this "motives don't matter" argument. We can throw everyone in jail.
Wait, what? I wasn't making that argument. :?
Well, if motives don't matter, we only need consider the physical aspects of any case, with no other considerations. Ergo, if you have bad brakes, you are guilty of reckless endangerment at the very least.
I'm not sure what you think I was thinking when I wrote that post, but what I was thinking was "Negligence which causes death =/= murder".
Beyond that, :? :?
QuoteThe 1969 federal hate-crime law (18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2)) extends to crimes motivated by actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin, and only while the victim is engaging in a federally-protected activity, like voting or going to school.[12] Penalties, under both the existing law and the LLEHCPA (Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, originally called the "Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act"), for hate crimes involving firearms are prison terms of up to 10 years, while crimes involving kidnapping, sexual assault, or murder can bring life in prison
From here: Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act: Background (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard_Act#Background)
Doesn't mean they're added all the time, though (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Gwen_Araujo).
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 11:21:54 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 06, 2010, 11:20:31 PM
But regardless of the morals, people who kill people in hate crimes in places where there are no hate crime laws don't get convicted of murder, they get convicted of assault with a deadly weapon or some other minor penalty and only get a couple years in jail, that is if the cops bother to investigate the crime at all.
wut
Happened in the 90s, a transsexual was killed, her killer got convicted of assault and battery, served 2 1/2 years.
http://www.gendertalk.com/articles/archive/globcp.shtml
Hrmmm....
*Rat tries to sidestep all the land mines*
1. Killing for revenge vs killing for money vs killing cause you don't like the gay/black/Discordian/whatever.
Killing for revenge (depending on the situation) may be acceptable to me, personally because of my philosophy. However, if the government that says killing is badwrong, then they should consider it badwrong.
Killing for money is a pretty straigthtforward situation if the government says killing is badwrong, then they should consider it badwrong.
Killing because you don't like person X's color, sexual partner or religion (or irreligion) is also straightforward because if the government says killing is badwrong, then they should consider it badwrong.
There should be no difference between Premeditated murder and premeditated murder in the eyes of the law(even if I personally think that killing the jackass that raped your wife and killed your kids may be morally acceptable).
2. Negligence certainly could lead to manslaughter and it should be dealt with per the laws related to manslaughter. Negligence that has not yet resulted in harm should not be dealt with per the laws related to manslaughter, but should be dealt with per laws related to negligence. (if you have bad brakes, you are guilty of negligence and possibly reckless endangerment.... I agree with this)
3. Somehow we came up with "just the physical aspects of the case" I don't agree with this, nor have I said that. I think that we must consider the intent of the actor. If the actor intended to kill the victim, then that is certainly worse than the actor not intending to kill the victim.
Requia brought up the only valuable point of Hate Crime laws... and I think that Hate Crime laws are the wrong way to fix the problem. If a cop isn't prosecuting the murder of a gay person as intently as he is prosecuting the murder of a random joe... then the problem is the Cop, not the law. (and maybe the society that the cop lives in)....
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on October 06, 2010, 10:39:35 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 06, 2010, 10:26:13 PM
I don't think that Somila is an example of Libertarianism... I mean you can argue that its some form of anarchy (the chaotic lack of any sort of functioning government) but even that is different than Anarchism the political philosophy.
No, but there's no government there to keep the cream from reaching the top.
I mean, just about any American with a little capital should be able to go there and live free, right? Maybe even take advantage of the situation to make their fortune... so why do all of the guys screaming about wanting a free market not go to Somalia and take advantage of theirs?
Well, most libertarians and libertarian philosophy holds that the government is necessary to provide basic security etc so that the market can flourish. No libertarian wants "No Government" that would make them an anarchist. Most systems of Anarchy don't even claim to want No Government, they want Voluntary Association.
Somalia is a failed state... no one I'm aware of think a failed state is a good thing. Except maybe crazy people.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 11:26:32 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on October 06, 2010, 11:25:19 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2010, 11:24:20 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on October 06, 2010, 11:22:40 PM
That's where it gets sticky.
Accidents can be horrible, and yeah he deserves to go to prison, but negligence causing a death isn't quite as bad as actively seeking to take a life.
Even if it were the monkey.
Okay. So we check everyone's brakes, and we find that Ratatosk's brakes are also bad, but he hasn't hit anyone yet.
So we pitch him in jail for attempted murder/reckless endangerment.
I think I like this "motives don't matter" argument. We can throw everyone in jail.
Wait, what? I wasn't making that argument. :?
Well, if motives don't matter, we only need consider the physical aspects of any case, with no other considerations. Ergo, if you have bad brakes, you are guilty of reckless endangerment at the very least.
Motive does matter.
Other wise there would only be Assualt and Murder. There would be no manslaughter, murder 1, 2 or 3. You killed someone you killed them whether it was an accident, in self-defence, as a crime of passion, or for money.
That being said, I believe that motive does figure into whether a death is or isn't manslaughter.
I'l get back to this later on the issues of bad brakes and reckless endangerment, but off the top of my head that sounds plausible. You knowingly drive around in a 2000lb+ vehicle with poor brakes, seems like saying it's ok to run around a metropolitan area waving a loaded around, or a bare blade.
Motive should play a part in determining sentences and such. In terms of who's a worse person, I'll rank a cold blooded murderer above the man who murdered the bastard who raped his wife. I'll rank someone who drags a black man to death behind his truck just because he's black above the sheer cold blooded murderer.
Who would you rather have back out into society sooner? I'll take crime of passion guy before I'll accept either of the other two, and I'll take plain ol' cold blooded murderer over the bigot who murdered a man because of the color of his skin. At least the cold blooded guy didn't pick their victim because of something like that.
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 06, 2010, 11:43:29 PM
Requia brought up the only valuable point of Hate Crime laws... and I think that Hate Crime laws are the wrong way to fix the problem. If a cop isn't prosecuting the murder of a gay person as intently as he is prosecuting the murder of a random joe... then the problem is the Cop, not the law. (and maybe the society that the cop lives in)....
Societies don't change nearly as fast as we might like. Hate crime laws can help get justice for those who won't get it otherwise.
Quote from: Hover Cat on October 07, 2010, 12:54:37 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 06, 2010, 11:43:29 PM
Requia brought up the only valuable point of Hate Crime laws... and I think that Hate Crime laws are the wrong way to fix the problem. If a cop isn't prosecuting the murder of a gay person as intently as he is prosecuting the murder of a random joe... then the problem is the Cop, not the law. (and maybe the society that the cop lives in)....
Societies don't change nearly as fast as we might like. Hate crime laws can help get justice for those who won't get it otherwise.
And since when shouldn't we try to even out the biases of cops anyway? So the problem is the cop, not the law. So the problem is society.
...
A FAGGOT STILL GOT MURDERED AND NO ONE INVESTIGATED IT RIGHT.
See what I'm saying here?
Quote from: Kai on October 07, 2010, 02:14:22 AM
Quote from: Hover Cat on October 07, 2010, 12:54:37 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 06, 2010, 11:43:29 PM
Requia brought up the only valuable point of Hate Crime laws... and I think that Hate Crime laws are the wrong way to fix the problem. If a cop isn't prosecuting the murder of a gay person as intently as he is prosecuting the murder of a random joe... then the problem is the Cop, not the law. (and maybe the society that the cop lives in)....
Societies don't change nearly as fast as we might like. Hate crime laws can help get justice for those who won't get it otherwise.
And since when shouldn't we try to even out the biases of cops anyway? So the problem is the cop, not the law. So the problem is society.
...
A FAGGOT STILL GOT MURDERED AND NO ONE INVESTIGATED IT RIGHT.
See what I'm saying here?
I'm not entirely sure I'm reading you right (because I am very tired), but what I meant and should have said clearly, was that the Right Now society is why we need it. Society is changing, but law enforcement isn't always up to date, so to speak. It will catch up when more of the cops are of a younger generation and/or get their heads out of their asses, but that isn't necessarily right now. Shore up the moment and work on more permanent solution in the time you have.
Quote from: Kai on October 07, 2010, 02:14:22 AM
Quote from: Hover Cat on October 07, 2010, 12:54:37 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 06, 2010, 11:43:29 PM
Requia brought up the only valuable point of Hate Crime laws... and I think that Hate Crime laws are the wrong way to fix the problem. If a cop isn't prosecuting the murder of a gay person as intently as he is prosecuting the murder of a random joe... then the problem is the Cop, not the law. (and maybe the society that the cop lives in)....
Societies don't change nearly as fast as we might like. Hate crime laws can help get justice for those who won't get it otherwise.
And since when shouldn't we try to even out the biases of cops anyway? So the problem is the cop, not the law. So the problem is society.
...
A FAGGOT STILL GOT MURDERED AND NO ONE INVESTIGATED IT RIGHT.
See what I'm saying here?
Laws change cultures. That's the whole point of having them.
Just make negligence in these scenarios a hate crime. Problem patched.
Quote from: Sigmatic on October 07, 2010, 05:06:17 AM
Just make negligence in these scenarios a hate crime. Problem patched.
:retard:
Quote from: Hover Cat on October 07, 2010, 12:54:37 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 06, 2010, 11:43:29 PM
Requia brought up the only valuable point of Hate Crime laws... and I think that Hate Crime laws are the wrong way to fix the problem. If a cop isn't prosecuting the murder of a gay person as intently as he is prosecuting the murder of a random joe... then the problem is the Cop, not the law. (and maybe the society that the cop lives in)....
Societies don't change nearly as fast as we might like. Hate crime laws can help get justice for those who won't get it otherwise.
I think though that its bad way to use law... that is. If we want to make X illegal (even if society doesn't like it) we pass a law... in cases where someone has been killed or assaulted, there are already laws to cover that. If cops aren't enforcing current laws, then those cops need reeducation or a boot to the head.... or maybe a law saying that failure to properly investigate (and for prosecutors) to prosecute all crimes is an offense that results in termination. I understand WHY some lawmakers are pushing for anti- hate crime laws, it just seems redundant and focused on the crime, rather than the negligence on the part of investigators/prosecutors... which seems to be the real issue.
However, hate crime law is nowhere near as egregious in the philosophy of 'America' as the idea of Constitutional amendments on marriage, making abortion illegal, pushing for prayer in school... all of which strike at the very notion of the nation. And that, is the real point of my initial comment. I may find some of what the Democrats push for to be wrong... its not completely batshit insane which is where much of the GOP's policies seem to be at this point. When we top that off with a record of financial waste, government growth and failed policies that range from Trickle Down Economics to Exporting Democracy... there's no libertarian/fiscal conservative reason I can see for supporting the GOP. They are like whitewashed graves, clean on the outside and on the inside full of death.
If I have to choose between fiscal freedom (ie lower taxes) and social freedom... I'll choose social freedom. I'd prefer both, but I'll pay more if it means I and everyone else can live as we see fit.
Laws criminalizing bad behavior that is specific to cops and prosecutors will *never* be enforced. Also keep in mind that the jury is part of the equation as well.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 07, 2010, 03:37:34 PM
Laws criminalizing bad behavior that is specific to cops and prosecutors will *never* be enforced. Also keep in mind that the jury is part of the equation as well.
So Sherrif Sakodonuts finds out one of his good ol' boys killed a gay kid... He does the absolute minimum required and basically lets his buddy off.
We pass Hate Crime Law
Sherrif Sakodonuts finds out one of his good ol' boys killed a gay kid... He does the absolute minimum required and basically lets his buddy off. Unless the law has some kind of minimum enforcement... then he just botches the investigation, forgets to read the guy his rights or get a warrant properly... and basically lets his buddy off.
If the enforcers of law don't enforce the law, whats the value of more law which makes something illegal... illegal?
One of the key parts of hate crime legislation is that it allows for requests that federal or state officials (depending on if its a state or federal law) get involved.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 07, 2010, 04:06:57 PM
One of the key parts of hate crime legislation is that it allows for requests that federal or state officials (depending on if its a state or federal law) get involved.
Sure, but IMO that should be the case with any sort of crime if the Good Ol Boys aren't doing their job... not just hate crimes.
I'm on the fence on hate crimes legislation.
I am utterly opposed to laws concerning hate speech, though.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 07, 2010, 05:41:11 PM
I'm on the fence on hate crimes legislation.
I am utterly opposed to laws concerning hate speech, though.
they don't exist.
:damnright:
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 07, 2010, 05:53:31 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 07, 2010, 05:41:11 PM
I'm on the fence on hate crimes legislation.
I am utterly opposed to laws concerning hate speech, though.
they don't exist.
:damnright:
In the States.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 07, 2010, 05:53:31 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 07, 2010, 05:41:11 PM
I'm on the fence on hate crimes legislation.
I am utterly opposed to laws concerning hate speech, though.
they don't exist.
:damnright:
Well, then, we never have to worry, right?
Quote from: Remington on October 07, 2010, 05:56:53 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 07, 2010, 05:53:31 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 07, 2010, 05:41:11 PM
I'm on the fence on hate crimes legislation.
I am utterly opposed to laws concerning hate speech, though.
they don't exist.
:damnright:
In the States.
yeah, I know. I read something recently about ol geert wilders being in trouble in the Netherlands for his public pronouncements.
hard to reconcile being on the side of that fuck, but I am completely against legislating this sort of thing.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 07, 2010, 05:59:02 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 07, 2010, 05:53:31 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 07, 2010, 05:41:11 PM
I'm on the fence on hate crimes legislation.
I am utterly opposed to laws concerning hate speech, though.
they don't exist.
:damnright:
Well, then, we never have to worry, right?
I have to say, we've been pretty good at shooting down anything that fucks with the 1st.
this thing with the Westboro Baptist Church could conceivably set a dangerous precedent. I'm eagerly awaiting the Supreme Court's ruling on that bunch.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 07, 2010, 06:04:20 PM
I have to say, we've been pretty good at shooting down anything that fucks with the 1st.
this thing with the Westboro Baptist Church could conceivably set a dangerous precedent. I'm eagerly awaiting the Supreme Court's ruling on that bunch.
We have?
Faith based funding
The Media Shield Act (thanks, Obama!)
Free speech zones
Dok,
Knows that the first amendment deals with more than speech.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 07, 2010, 06:06:47 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 07, 2010, 06:04:20 PM
I have to say, we've been pretty good at shooting down anything that fucks with the 1st.
this thing with the Westboro Baptist Church could conceivably set a dangerous precedent. I'm eagerly awaiting the Supreme Court's ruling on that bunch.
We have?
Faith based funding
The Media Shield Act (thanks, Obama!)
Free speech zones
Dok,
Knows that the first amendment deals with more than speech.
Free speech zone?
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on October 07, 2010, 06:12:56 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 07, 2010, 06:06:47 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 07, 2010, 06:04:20 PM
I have to say, we've been pretty good at shooting down anything that fucks with the 1st.
this thing with the Westboro Baptist Church could conceivably set a dangerous precedent. I'm eagerly awaiting the Supreme Court's ruling on that bunch.
We have?
Faith based funding
The Media Shield Act (thanks, Obama!)
Free speech zones
Dok,
Knows that the first amendment deals with more than speech.
Free speech zone?
Also known as "First Amendment Zones". The areas in which protestors are allowed to gather at political conventions, WTO meetings, etc. Usually a fenced-in area at least a half mile from the event they're there to protest. Previously, the whole country was a first amendment zone.
Bush invented the concept, but in the last two democratic conventions, they installed large CAGES for non-delegates to stand in while observing the convention, so it isn't a one-party thing.
And, being who they are, Americans just got used to it and moved on down the road toward the sheep pen.
:( I don't even know why I asked. I knew I wouldn't like the answer.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 07, 2010, 06:06:47 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 07, 2010, 06:04:20 PM
I have to say, we've been pretty good at shooting down anything that fucks with the 1st.
this thing with the Westboro Baptist Church could conceivably set a dangerous precedent. I'm eagerly awaiting the Supreme Court's ruling on that bunch.
We have?
Faith based funding
The Media Shield Act (thanks, Obama!)
Free speech zones
Dok,
Knows that the first amendment deals with more than speech.
what sort of faith based funding?
ALL? I can't see all being bad except that we aren't in the habit of extending the subsidies to all religions, so it's discriminatory based on religion. As long as they're providing *insert service with which they are tasked* and not proselytizing that is.
and yeah, I knew about free speech zones. It stinks of privileged law, keeping the filthy, unwashed and usually LOUD masses away from the rich important people just trying to get on with the business of making the decisions that effect the rest of us.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 07, 2010, 05:41:11 PM
I'm on the fence on hate crimes legislation.
I am utterly opposed to laws concerning hate speech, though.
Motorcycle
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 07, 2010, 06:21:19 PM
what sort of faith based funding?
ALL? I can't see all being bad except that we aren't in the habit of extending the subsidies to all religions, so it's discriminatory based on religion. As long as they're providing *insert service with which they are tasked* and not proselytizing that is.
If you don't include ALL religions, no matter how weird and/or horrible, then you're legislating with respect to an institution of religion, which violates the first amendment. If you're willing to allow any religion, then please fund The First Chuch of the Wrath of Baby Jesus™ (Doktor Howl, pastor) and our outreach program for troubled Tucson Discordians. Send the cheque to the First Bank of the Terrible Marching Powder in Medellin, Columbia. Thanks.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 07, 2010, 06:21:19 PM
and yeah, I knew about free speech zones. It stinks of privileged law, keeping the filthy, unwashed and usually LOUD masses away from the rich important people just trying to get on with the business of making the decisions that effect the rest of us.
The 1968 Democratic Convention is all the education you'll ever need in what the consequences are for having the gall to want to have a say in your government. They don't have to beat the shit out of hippies and journalists, anymore, though...They just put up a cage across the 4 acre parking lot of the convention center, and let the activists file on in.
We're finally getting the government we deserve, DP. :)
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 07, 2010, 06:27:07 PM
We're finally getting the government we deserve, DP. :)
:(
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 07, 2010, 06:27:07 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 07, 2010, 06:21:19 PM
what sort of faith based funding?
ALL? I can't see all being bad except that we aren't in the habit of extending the subsidies to all religions, so it's discriminatory based on religion. As long as they're providing *insert service with which they are tasked* and not proselytizing that is.
If you don't include ALL religions, no matter how weird and/or horrible, then you're legislating with respect to an institution of religion, which violates the first amendment. If you're willing to allow any religion, then please fund The First Chuch of the Wrath of Baby Jesus™ (Doktor Howl, pastor) and our outreach program for troubled Tucson Discordians. Send the cheque to the First Bank of the Terrible Marching Powder in Medellin, Columbia. Thanks.
That motorcycle is a solid ride, but it's kinda hard to find fault with public funding of something like The Salvation Army, which clearly identifies as a Christian Organization. I've had some experience with local Salvation Army people in my city (a city that hosts one of the largest churches in the nation) and not a one has ever said a damn thing about their god to me or anyone I know. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, and employees like to put up bible stuff on their desks, but the organization itself does a lot of good for a lot of people who would otherwise go without, and they do it through around 50% government subsidies. Even a heartless libertarian who is ok with letting people starve, much like myself, can find little fault with this other than what you mentioned about not funding all faith based help. They do not, however, turn people away because they're of a different religion.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 07, 2010, 06:27:07 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 07, 2010, 06:21:19 PM
and yeah, I knew about free speech zones. It stinks of privileged law, keeping the filthy, unwashed and usually LOUD masses away from the rich important people just trying to get on with the business of making the decisions that effect the rest of us.
The 1968 Democratic Convention is all the education you'll ever need in what the consequences are for having the gall to want to have a say in your government. They don't have to beat the shit out of hippies and journalists, anymore, though...They just put up a cage across the 4 acre parking lot of the convention center, and let the activists file on in.
We're finally getting the government we deserve, DP. :)
The Government we deserve: DP! :lulz:
(that's double penetration for anyone who didn't know that already)
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 07, 2010, 06:06:47 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 07, 2010, 06:04:20 PM
I have to say, we've been pretty good at shooting down anything that fucks with the 1st.
this thing with the Westboro Baptist Church could conceivably set a dangerous precedent. I'm eagerly awaiting the Supreme Court's ruling on that bunch.
We have?
Faith based funding
The Media Shield Act (thanks, Obama!)
Free speech zones
Dok,
Knows that the first amendment deals with more than speech.
Incidentally, there's a Free Speech Zone sign at a lookout point in Smokey Mountains National Park. Two colleagues of mine had a picture of them taken, screaming obscenities at each other in front of this sign.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 07, 2010, 06:15:47 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on October 07, 2010, 06:12:56 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 07, 2010, 06:06:47 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 07, 2010, 06:04:20 PM
I have to say, we've been pretty good at shooting down anything that fucks with the 1st.
this thing with the Westboro Baptist Church could conceivably set a dangerous precedent. I'm eagerly awaiting the Supreme Court's ruling on that bunch.
We have?
Faith based funding
The Media Shield Act (thanks, Obama!)
Free speech zones
Dok,
Knows that the first amendment deals with more than speech.
Free speech zone?
Also known as "First Amendment Zones". The areas in which protestors are allowed to gather at political conventions, WTO meetings, etc. Usually a fenced-in area at least a half mile from the event they're there to protest. Previously, the whole country was a first amendment zone.
Bush invented the concept, but in the last two democratic conventions, they installed large CAGES for non-delegates to stand in while observing the convention, so it isn't a one-party thing.
And, being who they are, Americans just got used to it and moved on down the road toward the sheep pen.
The 1999 WTO meeting in Seattle they had the "no free speech zone" covering all of Downtown. I got teargassed and pepper sprayed and nearly arrested for free speeching there. It was fun.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 07, 2010, 06:15:47 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on October 07, 2010, 06:12:56 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 07, 2010, 06:06:47 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 07, 2010, 06:04:20 PM
I have to say, we've been pretty good at shooting down anything that fucks with the 1st.
this thing with the Westboro Baptist Church could conceivably set a dangerous precedent. I'm eagerly awaiting the Supreme Court's ruling on that bunch.
We have?
Faith based funding
The Media Shield Act (thanks, Obama!)
Free speech zones
Dok,
Knows that the first amendment deals with more than speech.
Free speech zone?
Also known as "First Amendment Zones". The areas in which protestors are allowed to gather at political conventions, WTO meetings, etc. Usually a fenced-in area at least a half mile from the event they're there to protest. Previously, the whole country was a first amendment zone.
Bush invented the concept, but in the last two democratic conventions, they installed large CAGES for non-delegates to stand in while observing the convention, so it isn't a one-party thing.
And, being who they are, Americans just got used to it and moved on down the road toward the sheep pen.
HA! AWESOME
amendment to current politics. after portland's downtown was literally shut down by protesters during bush jr.'s first visit, when that punk came back here again (still owing the state of oregon over $250,000 from security arrangements from the
last time) it was way outside of city center, huge plate prices to attend & the "free speech zone" was something like 1.5 miles from where he actually spoke.
ALTHOUGH,
it was unnecessary really, as far as the media was concerned, because THE FIRST TIME, when you couldn't walk through downtown without being cow herded by the police, the GOP had local cops clear an entire street (whacking and teargassing old ladies and children) so that they could shoot camera footage of a select dozen people and declare that those few, were the radical opposition to his appearance.
I READ
an interesting/ surprising comment on FB this morning where someone noted that; people watched what they said during W jr., but think it's o.k. to speak their minds now because they assume obama is doing the 'right thing'. full of interpretive lol.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on October 09, 2010, 08:00:25 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 07, 2010, 06:15:47 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on October 07, 2010, 06:12:56 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 07, 2010, 06:06:47 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 07, 2010, 06:04:20 PM
I have to say, we've been pretty good at shooting down anything that fucks with the 1st.
this thing with the Westboro Baptist Church could conceivably set a dangerous precedent. I'm eagerly awaiting the Supreme Court's ruling on that bunch.
We have?
Faith based funding
The Media Shield Act (thanks, Obama!)
Free speech zones
Dok,
Knows that the first amendment deals with more than speech.
Free speech zone?
Also known as "First Amendment Zones". The areas in which protestors are allowed to gather at political conventions, WTO meetings, etc. Usually a fenced-in area at least a half mile from the event they're there to protest. Previously, the whole country was a first amendment zone.
Bush invented the concept, but in the last two democratic conventions, they installed large CAGES for non-delegates to stand in while observing the convention, so it isn't a one-party thing.
And, being who they are, Americans just got used to it and moved on down the road toward the sheep pen.
The 1999 WTO meeting in Seattle they had the "no free speech zone" covering all of Downtown. I got teargassed and pepper sprayed and nearly arrested for free speeching there. It was fun.
I am utterly unsurprised to find out that you were one of THOSE fuckwits.
Quote from: First City Hustle on October 11, 2010, 06:41:00 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on October 09, 2010, 08:00:25 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 07, 2010, 06:15:47 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on October 07, 2010, 06:12:56 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 07, 2010, 06:06:47 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on October 07, 2010, 06:04:20 PM
I have to say, we've been pretty good at shooting down anything that fucks with the 1st.
this thing with the Westboro Baptist Church could conceivably set a dangerous precedent. I'm eagerly awaiting the Supreme Court's ruling on that bunch.
We have?
Faith based funding
The Media Shield Act (thanks, Obama!)
Free speech zones
Dok,
Knows that the first amendment deals with more than speech.
Free speech zone?
Also known as "First Amendment Zones". The areas in which protestors are allowed to gather at political conventions, WTO meetings, etc. Usually a fenced-in area at least a half mile from the event they're there to protest. Previously, the whole country was a first amendment zone.
Bush invented the concept, but in the last two democratic conventions, they installed large CAGES for non-delegates to stand in while observing the convention, so it isn't a one-party thing.
And, being who they are, Americans just got used to it and moved on down the road toward the sheep pen.
The 1999 WTO meeting in Seattle they had the "no free speech zone" covering all of Downtown. I got teargassed and pepper sprayed and nearly arrested for free speeching there. It was fun.
I am utterly unsurprised to find out that you were one of THOSE fuckwits.
E.O.T.
"LIKES" ech's comment
I was living in Belltown when that shit happened. In all fairness, 95% of the people who were there to protest were doing it right. The other 5% were mostly van-driving, black bloc-claiming, nasty dred-sporting, trustafarian fucking ANARCHIST assclowns who had to ruin it for everyone. Especially those of us who lived in the neighborhood.
This actually explains the roots of my extreme antipathy towards anarchists, though it by no means explains the continued existence of that antipathy. That is confirmed and reinforced every goddamn time I have the misfortune of interacting with one of those runny sores on the taint of humanity.
Quote from: First City Hustle on October 11, 2010, 06:55:02 AM
I was living in Belltown when that shit happened. In all fairness, 95% of the people who were there to protest were doing it right. The other 5% were mostly van-driving, black bloc-claiming, nasty dred-sporting, trustafarian fucking ANARCHIST assclowns who had to ruin it for everyone. Especially those of us who lived in the neighborhood.
This actually explains the roots of my extreme antipathy towards anarchists, though it by no means explains the continued existence of that antipathy. That is confirmed and reinforced every goddamn time I have the misfortune of interacting with one of those runny sores on the taint of humanity.
I wasn't doing that. I admittedly did help instigate an illegal march from a USWA rally down on the docks (that was when I invaded the "no free speech zone"), but I spent most of my time helping out in Capital Hill treating people for teargas, and feeding people and whatnot.