http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/08/12/_2012_massachusetts_senate_elizabeth_warren_hints_at_scott_brown.html
Elizabeth Warren may be running against Scott Brown in the Senate. I can't see much I don't like about her, except (of course) being a politician in the first place.
It could be a lot of fun seeing her kick Wall Street in the balls, repeatedly.
(http://www.bagnewsnotes.com/files/2011/08/elizabeth_warren_posse.png)
fuck yeah! Elizabeth Warren kicks ass. Somebody remind me why Obama didn't put her in charge of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was her idea to begin with?
(http://www.bagnewsnotes.com/files/2011/08/Elizabeth-Warren-Yes-She-Can.jpg)
As I recall, because the Republicans in Congress basically stated they'd never allow her confirmation.
Although I think also there was more than a little pressure against her from both banking/Wall Street lobbyists and all the former Goldman Sachs people who make up Obama's economic advisers.
It tickles me that you guys think she won't be utterly corrupted by the office. :lulz:
Hopeless optimist, that's me.
LMNO
-or just pretty much hopeless. Time will tell.
I predict that given this stiff competition we'll see Brown try to do a subtle tilt to the left.
I predict that Lloyd Blankfein is currently writing a very large cheque for Brown, and that Brown will have no problems with funding his campaign.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on September 08, 2011, 01:58:35 AM
It tickles me that you guys think she won't be utterly corrupted by the office. :lulz:
You could probably post a similar cynical dismissive note in every thread in Aneristic Delusions and you'd probably be right. But "she might get totally corrupted one day" isn't exactly an argument against her.
Elizabeth Warren is one of the whistleblowers who's been raising awareness of the financial bloc's corruption and systemic dysfunction. Every time I've heard her speak I've said to myself, holy shit, I'm glad SOMEBODY in Washington isn't afraid to screech about the emperor's new clothes.
I am not waiting for the purehearted uncorruptable messiah to walk barefoot through the crowd and save all of us. (That spag couldn't get elected if he tried.)
Don't get me wrong, I'd like that as much as you would.
I just feel like things have devolved to the point that my cynicism isn't even cynicism anymore, it's just resignation towards the inevitable.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on September 08, 2011, 10:03:26 PM
Don't get me wrong, I'd like that as much as you would.
I just feel like things have devolved to the point that my cynicism isn't even cynicism anymore, it's just resignation towards the inevitable.
I think you and I, our most bitterly pessimistic predictions will turn out to be idiotically optimistic.
I'm just glad she's running.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/20/ppp-poll-elizabeth-warren-scott-brown-massachusetts_n_972058.html
Looks like she's doing well.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on September 08, 2011, 01:58:35 AM
It tickles me that you guys think she won't be utterly corrupted by the office. :lulz:
Every so often I want to go back and collect all the posts praising obama when he was running and quote them in one big post.
Quote from: Faust on September 21, 2011, 01:38:12 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on September 08, 2011, 01:58:35 AM
It tickles me that you guys think she won't be utterly corrupted by the office. :lulz:
Every so often I want to go back and collect all the posts praising obama when he was running and quote them in one big post.
:lulz:
wasn't it you who posted something along the lines of the best thing to come out of the Obama presidency is the crushing of the belief by democrats that their team is really any different? I can't remember it exactly, but I'm pretty sure it was you.
Might have been me, that said that. Or I'm just remembering myself vigorously agreeing with that statement.
yeah, it might have been you, Trip. I can't be sure but I remember having a good, long laugh about it.
doomsaying & preemptive "I told you so" aside, does anybody have a reason we shouldn't be excited for Elizabeth Warren?
Quote from: Cramulus on September 21, 2011, 02:23:06 PM
doomsaying & preemptive "I told you so" aside, does anybody have a reason we shouldn't be excited for Elizabeth Warren?
Not that I see. Other than the her being a lawyer. But that's par.
She has written a lot of books I'd like to add to my reading list.
The problem is that, all reality aside, it was easy to see just how TRANSPARENT McCain and Palin were about being assholish fucktards. Whereas Obama hid his well and then was victimized tirelessly by the GOP as so many red herring false labels...it became a little difficult to remember we were seeing this guy with rose-colored glasses. Some of us.
I regret a lot of the falderal I engaged in when becoming a little proud we'd elected who we did.
You should watch yesterday's Daily Show. The author guest for the interview at the end has some very interesting inside views of how Obama's confidence faltered over the first part of his term, letting other people call the shots in certain cases.
I called from the start that he would suck on AfPak and economics. He admitted as such, through his chosen policies, and through the people he surrounded himself with (I mean, come on, he hired Tim "our man in Washington" Geithner for fucks sake).
I was surprised he wasn't a little more firm on the rhetorical side of things, I'll admit, slapping the teabaggers and birthers around more, but Obama showed every sign of being a pro-interventionist corporatist, and surprise! he's governed that way.
Oh, I heard some interviews on this already--was it that guy who wrote that book?--Suskind?
I have it recorded, I just need to watch it. Doesn't surprise me that is how his presidency has gone down. He strikes me as the "emote in private, in public be confident" type because that's how he probably dealt with social adversity (in any sense) when he was younger.
Thing is, it can be intimidating, but not in the RIGHT way when you're in office. Not when we have people willing to elect yahoos based on whether or not they want to have a beer with them.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 21, 2011, 02:23:06 PM
doomsaying & preemptive "I told you so" aside, does anybody have a reason we shouldn't be excited for Elizabeth Warren?
How about "because she's probably doing alot more for the good of the general public where she is"?
so let me make sure I understand -- given the choice between Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown, you'd vote for Brown because Warren is doing more good for the public as a Harvard law professor than she could do as a Senator?
No, I'd vote for Brown because I want to see this ride come flying off the tracks sooner rather than later. :lulz:
But you didn't ask who I'd vote for, you asked if anyone had a reason to not be excited about her aside from the two very obvious ones whose value you seem to be dismissing just by virtue of their obviousness.
QuoteThere is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.
You built a factory out there—good for you! But I want to be clear.
You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for.
You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate.
You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for.
You didn't have to worry that maurauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.
Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea—God bless. Keep a big hunk of it.
But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/669655/elizabeth_warren_puts_the_kibosh_on_gop%27s_%22class_warfare%22%3A_nobody_in_this_country_got_rich_on_his_own%22/
Problem of course being that the GOP want to pay it forward to the next kid(s) that come along. Their own kids and only their own kids. Why do you think they oppose inheritance taxes?
Quote from: PopeTom on September 22, 2011, 12:04:49 AM
Problem of course being that the GOP want to pay it forward to the next kid(s) that come along. Their own kids and only their own kids. Why do you think they oppose inheritance taxes?
I'd love a good explanation on why someone supports high inheritance taxes. I have my suspicions, but I'd love to have them destroyed. I'm a masochist that way.
Please, explain to my why the wealth built in one generation of a family should be gutted and taken from the next generation of a family and given to a central authority to do.. what ever it is they do with it.
war mostly, if history is any indicator.
Though my opinion on the matter is not what I would consider well-informed, I don't support the inheritance tax.
I have no real opinion on the inheritance tax.
On the one hand, there's the idea that people didn't earn what they are inheriting.
On the other, they person leaving it to them MIGHT have, in which case it's theirs to do with as they wish, including giving it to their ungrateful brat who didn't earn it and will probably squander it all on hookers and blow anyway.
On the third hand, the people who screech the loudest against inheritance tax are generally the same people who want to cut welfare programs because it gives people a "free handout". Which is of course, nothing like daddy giving you a free handout when he kicks the bucket.
On the fourth hand, the government is probably going to end up using it to fund a secret war in South America that's being fought over hookers and blow, and who has the right to sell them in 'Murrica.
So, in conclusion, I don't really give a fuck.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on September 22, 2011, 04:23:54 AM
I have no real opinion on the inheritance tax.
On the one hand, there's the idea that people didn't earn what they are inheriting.
On the other, they person leaving it to them MIGHT have, in which case it's theirs to do with as they wish, including giving it to their ungrateful brat who didn't earn it and will probably squander it all on hookers and blow anyway.
On the third hand, the people who screech the loudest against inheritance tax are generally the same people who want to cut welfare programs because it gives people a "free handout". Which is of course, nothing like daddy giving you a free handout when he kicks the bucket.
On the fourth hand, the government is probably going to end up using it to fund a secret war in South America that's being fought over hookers and blow, and who has the right to sell them in 'Murrica.
So, in conclusion, I don't really give a fuck.
I now consider myself to have a more-informed opinion and have adopted your position on the matter. :lulz:
Glad to be of service, ECH. :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Phox on September 22, 2011, 04:23:54 AM
I have no real opinion on the inheritance tax.
On the one hand, there's the idea that people didn't earn what they are inheriting.
On the other, they person leaving it to them MIGHT have, in which case it's theirs to do with as they wish, including giving it to their ungrateful brat who didn't earn it and will probably squander it all on hookers and blow anyway.
On the third hand, the people who screech the loudest against inheritance tax are generally the same people who want to cut welfare programs because it gives people a "free handout". Which is of course, nothing like daddy giving you a free handout when he kicks the bucket.
On the fourth hand, the government is probably going to end up using it to fund a secret war in South America that's being fought over hookers and blow, and who has the right to sell them in 'Murrica.
So, in conclusion, I don't really give a fuck.
Thank you, Shiva.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on September 22, 2011, 04:23:54 AM
I have no real opinion on the inheritance tax.
On the one hand, there's the idea that people didn't earn what they are inheriting.
On the other, they person leaving it to them MIGHT have, in which case it's theirs to do with as they wish, including giving it to their ungrateful brat who didn't earn it and will probably squander it all on hookers and blow anyway.
On the third hand, the people who screech the loudest against inheritance tax are generally the same people who want to cut welfare programs because it gives people a "free handout". Which is of course, nothing like daddy giving you a free handout when he kicks the bucket.
On the fourth hand, the government is probably going to end up using it to fund a secret war in South America that's being fought over hookers and blow, and who has the right to sell them in 'Murrica.
So, in conclusion, I don't really give a fuck.
:lulz:
I love that hookers and blow made it into this twice.
I can make a proper argument for inheritance tax. It's fairly boring though, and involves no hookers or blow.
Quote from: Cain on September 22, 2011, 12:26:47 PM
I can make a proper argument for inheritance tax. It's fairly boring though, and involves no hookers or blow.
I'm interested.
Basically, money = political power. Money + families + political power = aristocracy.
By allowing especially large sums of money to be passed down through family lines untaxed, you are setting up a system whereby power is concentrated in the hands of a smaller number of blood relatives. From a meritocratic point of view, the worst outcome of this is that you can have political dynasties with vast amounts of power, but led by individuals who are incapable of even earning that kind of money, let alone having the capacity for reasonable use of political power on top of that. Unearned power controlled by morons becomes a certainty in an aristocratic system, by virtue of mathematics.
I can respect that view.
But what happens to the money collected? Those same political players' children are likely going to remain in politics in some form.
It seems to me they'd just use it as another way to enrich themselves through the state.
There's a good video at Khan academy called "When Capitalism is Great and Not-so-great" -- it's pretty basic, it outlines the differences between socialism and capitalism, but he does touch on the inheritance tax.
http://www.khanacademy.org/video/when-capitalism-is-great-and-not-so-great?playlist=History
tl;dw version: the reason we like capitalism to begin with is because it's a meritocracy. You put something in, you get something out. Hard work pays off. When too much of the economy is being trickled along bloodlines rather than circulated, it stops looking like a meritocracy. It's one of the properties of free market capitalism that perhaps needs to be kept in check, because on a long enough time line, it undermines the reasons we want to be capitalists anyway.
My favourite argument was made by Rawls. To avoid getting too spammy, it can be summed up as; from a hypothetical position of ignorance, without knowing what level of intelligence/physical fitness/social position you will inherit, it is most logical to lobby for a society which makes the most provision for the least fortunate; working to minimize the impact of luck on lifestyle.
Therefore, it is better for the majority that those few with great resources give them up and redistribute them into programs such as education, healthcare and infrastructure, which benefit everyone (including the relatives of the deceased), than it is for the minority to pass on their savings to their relatives after death.
It isn't perfect; you can't completely mitigate the luck of the draw when it comes to birth, but measures such as inheritance tax help to move towards a more just society in which the circumstances of ones birth have less impact on the prospects one enjoys than in other, less just societies.
I think this ties in nicely to Cain's argument.
I'd like to point out that if you have enough of an estate to qualify for the tax, it's insanely easy to set up ways to shelter it from the Tax Man.
ok, I understand these arguments, even if I don't entirely agree with them.
But answer me this: How does a moral society reconcile the immorality of taking wealth from one family's heirs to give to others (assuming that it would even be put to that use at all) for the crime of acquiring "more than their fair share" (whatever that is).
If a citizen did it, it would be robbery, no matter what noble cause for which he used it.
Quote from: Disco Pickleok, I understand these arguments, even if I don't entirely agree with them.
But answer me this: How does a moral society reconcile the immorality of taking wealth from one family's heirs to give to others (assuming that it would even be put to that use at all) for the crime of acquiring "more than their fair share" (whatever that is).
If a citizen did it, it would be robbery, no matter what noble cause for which he used it.
Society is what has enabled these individuals to obtain wealth in their lifetime; by supplying security, labor and access to resources.
The immorality would be allowing these individuals to pass the wealth on to people who have no claim to it other than the circumstances of their birth, rather than redistributing the wealth in a way which benefits the society which gave them the opportunity to live their lives in a fulfilled manner.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 22, 2011, 04:19:55 PM
ok, I understand these arguments, even if I don't entirely agree with them.
But answer me this: How does a moral society reconcile the immorality of taking wealth from one family's heirs to give to others (assuming that it would even be put to that use at all) for the crime of acquiring "more than their fair share" (whatever that is).
If a citizen did it, it would be robbery, no matter what noble cause for which he used it.
Please stop perpetuating the false comparison of a citizen (or family) to StateCorp™.
They are not the same. Any comparisons made between the two to illustrate "unfairness" is flawed.
I justify it on the basis of "stop whining you rich fucks, or I'll come to your mansion with tanks and take the rest. FFS".
Quote from: CainI justify it on the basis of "stop whining you rich fucks, or I'll come to your mansion with tanks and take the rest. FFS".
This is also a great justification. :mittens:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 22, 2011, 04:26:08 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 22, 2011, 04:19:55 PM
ok, I understand these arguments, even if I don't entirely agree with them.
But answer me this: How does a moral society reconcile the immorality of taking wealth from one family's heirs to give to others (assuming that it would even be put to that use at all) for the crime of acquiring "more than their fair share" (whatever that is).
If a citizen did it, it would be robbery, no matter what noble cause for which he used it.
Please stop perpetuating the false comparison of a citizen (or family) to StateCorp™.
They are not the same. Any comparisons made between the two to illustrate "unfairness" is flawed.
Mind elaborating on that a bit? I'm not sure I entirely understand.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 22, 2011, 04:31:44 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 22, 2011, 04:26:08 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 22, 2011, 04:19:55 PM
ok, I understand these arguments, even if I don't entirely agree with them.
But answer me this: How does a moral society reconcile the immorality of taking wealth from one family's heirs to give to others (assuming that it would even be put to that use at all) for the crime of acquiring "more than their fair share" (whatever that is).
If a citizen did it, it would be robbery, no matter what noble cause for which he used it.
Please stop perpetuating the false comparison of a citizen (or family) to StateCorp™.
They are not the same. Any comparisons made between the two to illustrate "unfairness" is flawed.
Mind elaborating on that a bit? I'm not sure I entirely understand.
What's to understand? It's a false analogy.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 22, 2011, 04:40:41 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 22, 2011, 04:31:44 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 22, 2011, 04:26:08 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 22, 2011, 04:19:55 PM
ok, I understand these arguments, even if I don't entirely agree with them.
But answer me this: How does a moral society reconcile the immorality of taking wealth from one family's heirs to give to others (assuming that it would even be put to that use at all) for the crime of acquiring "more than their fair share" (whatever that is).
If a citizen did it, it would be robbery, no matter what noble cause for which he used it.
Please stop perpetuating the false comparison of a citizen (or family) to StateCorp™.
They are not the same. Any comparisons made between the two to illustrate "unfairness" is flawed.
Mind elaborating on that a bit? I'm not sure I entirely understand.
What's to understand? It's a false analogy.
I asked for an explanation of why it's false. He said it was false. I got that.
To phrase it in a too-over-the-top manner:
Nothing is made for free. Even if you alone, using your own power, hew a tree branch into a crude tool in order to start taming the land, the very act of you doing so has deprived others of the tree branch, the land, and any profits you derive from it.
Therefore, by accumulating wealth, you have robbed society.
Upon your death, why should that wealth not be redistributed back as much as possible?
I thought the history of Europe from 1789-1990 gave plenty of excellent reasons as to why vast wealth disparities and concentration of power in a few hands is undesirable.
Apparently, I was wrong :mad:
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 22, 2011, 04:42:56 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 22, 2011, 04:40:41 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 22, 2011, 04:31:44 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 22, 2011, 04:26:08 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 22, 2011, 04:19:55 PM
ok, I understand these arguments, even if I don't entirely agree with them.
But answer me this: How does a moral society reconcile the immorality of taking wealth from one family's heirs to give to others (assuming that it would even be put to that use at all) for the crime of acquiring "more than their fair share" (whatever that is).
If a citizen did it, it would be robbery, no matter what noble cause for which he used it.
Please stop perpetuating the false comparison of a citizen (or family) to StateCorp™.
They are not the same. Any comparisons made between the two to illustrate "unfairness" is flawed.
Mind elaborating on that a bit? I'm not sure I entirely understand.
What's to understand? It's a false analogy.
I asked for an explanation of why it's false. He said it was false. I got that.
Well, for starters, my family doesn't have to keep the sea lanes open, build post roads, regulate interstate commerce, manage natural disasters, maintain a standing army, or any of the other insanely complex tasks which a nation has to deal with.
Stating that they are equivalent is like stating that maintaining a manual pump for a well is a direct equivalent to maintaining a nuclear power plant's cooling system.
HOW ABOUT THE CREATION OF A POSSIBLE ARISTOCRACY UNDERMINES DEMOCRATIC RULE? HOW ABOUT THAT CAUSING A BACKLASH OF LEFTWING RADICALISM, WHO TEND TO ALSO HATE DEMOCRATIC RULE? HOW ABOUT THAT LEADING TO A FASCIST BACKLASH, AND THEN WE HAVE A HUGE FUCKING WAR AND MILLIONS OF PEOPLE DIE?
OH HO, THAT CAIN, HE'S JUST JOKING. NOTHING LIKE THAT HAS EVER HAPPENED HISTORICALLY. CONCENTRATION OF WEALTH AND POLITICAL POWER IN A FEW HANDS IS FAR MORE PREFERABLE THAN THE POSSIBILITY OF THE STATE ACTING IN A "COERCIVE" MANNER.
GOD DAMN IT I WANT TO BEAT MY HEAD AGAINST A BRICK WALL, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THAT WOULD CAUSE LESS BRAIN DAMAGE THAN THIS CONVERSATION
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 22, 2011, 04:19:55 PM
ok, I understand these arguments, even if I don't entirely agree with them.
But answer me this: How does a moral society reconcile the immorality of taking wealth from one family's heirs to give to others (assuming that it would even be put to that use at all) for the crime of acquiring "more than their fair share" (whatever that is).
If a citizen did it, it would be robbery, no matter what noble cause for which he used it.
specifically a
moral justification of inheritance tax?
In a word: utilitarianism
Inheritance tax can lead to the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
Quote from: Cain on September 22, 2011, 04:49:26 PM
HOW ABOUT THE CREATION OF A POSSIBLE ARISTOCRACY UNDERMINES DEMOCRATIC RULE? HOW ABOUT THAT CAUSING A BACKLASH OF LEFTWING RADICALISM, WHO TEND TO ALSO HATE DEMOCRATIC RULE? HOW ABOUT THAT LEADING TO A FASCIST BACKLASH, AND THEN WE HAVE A HUGE FUCKING WAR AND MILLIONS OF PEOPLE DIE?
OH HO, THAT CAIN, HE'S JUST JOKING. NOTHING LIKE THAT HAS EVER HAPPENED HISTORICALLY. CONCENTRATION OF WEALTH AND POLITICAL POWER IN A FEW HANDS IS FAR MORE PREFERABLE THAN THE POSSIBILITY OF THE STATE ACTING IN A "COERCIVE" MANNER.
GOD DAMN IT I WANT TO BEAT MY HEAD AGAINST A BRICK WALL, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THAT WOULD CAUSE LESS BRAIN DAMAGE THAN THIS CONVERSATION
Now, now...People just weren't PURE enough the first 1000 times we tried this.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 22, 2011, 04:49:48 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 22, 2011, 04:19:55 PM
ok, I understand these arguments, even if I don't entirely agree with them.
But answer me this: How does a moral society reconcile the immorality of taking wealth from one family's heirs to give to others (assuming that it would even be put to that use at all) for the crime of acquiring "more than their fair share" (whatever that is).
If a citizen did it, it would be robbery, no matter what noble cause for which he used it.
specifically a moral justification of inheritance tax?
In a word: utilitarianism
Inheritance tax can lead to the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
This.
Government, however odious, is NECESSARY, and the fucking bills HAVE TO BE PAID.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 22, 2011, 04:19:55 PM
ok, I understand these arguments, even if I don't entirely agree with them.
But answer me this: How does a moral society reconcile the immorality of taking wealth from one family's heirs to give to others (assuming that it would even be put to that use at all) for the crime of acquiring "more than their fair share" (whatever that is).
If a citizen did it, it would be robbery, no matter what noble cause for which he used it.
But it isn't a citizen. It is a government agreed to by the citizenry, and one of the purposes of that government is to make sure things function, more or less, and that involves taxation.
Unless you think roads and schools just grow by themselves.
Or perhaps you'd prefer to function without them?
As I was writing the below response, you guys did a much better job.
For posterity, what I had written:
One is an individual with singular wants, needs, and exhibits behaviors usually in their individual best interests.
The other is a collection of rules and agreements, usually contradictictory, which are (hopefully) designed to ensure individuals who live under those rules don't try to kill each other.
Collections of rules are neither inherently logical nor moral, nor should they behave in the same manner as individuals.
As an example, take the budget crisis. An individual facing looming debt in a recession would cut spending heavily, while trying to increase income.
A state facing debt in a recession should spend money, as best explained by Keynes.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 22, 2011, 04:58:15 PM
As I was writing the below response, you guys did a much better job.
For posterity, what I had written:
One is an individual with singular wants, needs, and exhibits behaviors usually in their individual best interests.
The other is a collection of rules and agreements, usually contradictictory, which are (hopefully) designed to ensure individuals who live under those rules don't try to kill each other.
Collections of rules are neither inherently logical nor moral, nor should they behave in the same manner as individuals.
As an example, take the budget crisis. An individual facing looming debt in a recession would cut spending heavily, while trying to increase income.
A state facing debt in a recession should spend money, as best explained by Keynes.
Fact 1: No individual, in the current environment, can sustain their standard of living (or even their lives) alone.
Fact 2: No two people have exactly the same ideas as how to run things.
Fact 3: We therefore have hired a government to run things. While that government is far from perfect, it must be remembered that the Soviets thought they could make things perfect. Object lesson, there.
Fact 4: Nothing is free.
The US government has the same flaw that all other governments save monarchy have (and it has its own problems): A system was designed with the idea that monkeys would act unnaturally in order to adhere to the system. Since it is proven that monkeys will ALWAYS act like monkeys in any group of monkeys larger than 7 individuals, it is obvious that the system can NEVER be perfect.
But would you want it to be? Seriously?
Thanks for all the input guys. You've gone a long way toward changing my mind on a few things and helping break down some concepts for me.
Cain, chill out man. I think I've more than once expressed my ability to change the way I look at the world, most often and recently by spending time on this forum and getting you guy's input. Blowing your head gasket because I asked a question isn't good for you.
It occurs to me that what Libertarians, etc, are trying to do is simplify the system, to inject some sort of simple order to it (not talking about the Koch Bros, here, but your average Starbucks-going, pay'bucker libertarian).
And we all know what happens when you try to impose order, especially a simple order on a complex system.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 22, 2011, 05:12:11 PM
Thanks for all the input guys. You've gone a long way toward changing my mind on a few things and helping break down some concepts for me.
Cain, chill out man. I think I've more than once expressed my ability to change the way I look at the world, most often and recently by spending time on this forum and getting you guy's input. Blowing your head gasket because I asked a question isn't good for you.
Well, except that within a week or so, your conditioning kicks in, and we have the same argument. :lulz:
Also, it's ALWAYS a good time to utterly lose your shit, because when you're dead, you'll SHUT UP LIKE HELL.
I'll blow my gasket whenever the fuck I feel like it, you jumped up little nitwit.
How about we make a deal? You stop throwing out glibertarian red herrings, and I wont give you the treatment you so richly deserve for doing so? Sound fair?
Or you can continue with the bullshit, and I'll continue with exactly how I'm posting right now.
Quote from: Cain on September 22, 2011, 05:20:46 PM
I'll blow my gasket whenever the fuck I feel like it, you jumped up little nitwit.
How about we make a deal? You stop throwing out glibertarian red herrings, and I wont give you the treatment you so richly deserve for doing so? Sound fair?
Or you can continue with the bullshit, and I'll continue with exactly how I'm posting right now.
While I ain't gonna mess with your game, it might be remembered that he has years of free market nonsense hammered into his frontal lobes, by people with far more resources than we have.
It's no different than trying to explain reality to a communist, if you think about it. All of these cookie-cutter, one-size-fixes-everything political templates have been touted by people who are experts in conditioning techniques. It's possible to defeat, but some amount of relapse is to be expected.
For example, all you have to say to a libertarian is "Ron Paul" and their eyes glaze over, and they're once again fretting about the perfect world™.
Oh, I don't care about education.
This is entirely about shaming him to the point I don't have to listen to patently bullshit arguments anymore. He can believe what he likes, so long as I don't have my brain assaulted by being made to consider moronic notions.
Quote from: Cain on September 22, 2011, 05:28:17 PM
Oh, I don't care about education.
This is entirely about shaming him to the point I don't have to listen to patently bullshit arguments anymore. He can believe what he likes, so long as I don't have my brain assaulted by being made to consider moronic notions.
Yeah, well, my problem is that no matter how hard I try to be a Holocaustal, I always wind up acting Ivangelical.
Quote from: Cain on September 22, 2011, 04:28:02 PM
I justify it on the basis of "stop whining you rich fucks, or I'll come to your mansion with tanks and take the rest. FFS".
:lulz: :mittens:
You know, I didn't used to feel the way I do now about redistribution of wealth...but at this point in time, I have NO problem with realizing that the corporate stranglehold on our government means that any way we can wrestle out of the superrich some dough for infrastructure, the better off we will be as a whole.
The misconception that the superrich will of their own accord kick down for Joe Blow needs to be quashed, and HOW. The time for the Vanderbilts, Hearsts and Rockefellers is GONE. The fuckers with all the dough are NOT in it to do anything but win it. Guys like Gates and Buffet are NOT a dime a dozen...and the fact that so many in the banking industry have behaved as they have while taking so many bonuses that were sheltered I'm sure from taxing...
Yeah.
I have no problem taking it from their kids through taxes if the rich fucks won't contribute it on their own when it's "made" in the first place.
Yeah, fuck me for trying to change the way I think by soliciting knowledge from people who know more than me about a subject.
What was I thinking?
Fuck it. I wasn't trying to piss anyone off. Now your being pissed is getting me pissed.
Go fuck yourself you sour cunt. I didn't twist your arm into coming to this thread. I didn't even ask you a fucking question, I was talking to DSquid and LMNO.
Not that it's any consequence or that you likely give two shits, but I liked you and have learned a lot from you.
You'll make a great fucking professor some day with that shit attitude of yours.
I wonder if there's a way to separate "actually earned" income (I built a cabinet, I analyzed this document for errors, I cleaned this window), and "magically appeared" income (my savings account grew 5% for no other reason than it just sat in a bank, speculative trading, hedge funds), and then lower the taxes on "actually earned", and raise them on "magically appeared"?
It seems that would encourage people to make money doing things that at least did something in the real world.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 22, 2011, 05:39:49 PM
Yeah, fuck me for trying to change the way I think by soliciting knowledge from people who know more than me about a subject.
What was I thinking?
Fuck it. I wasn't trying to piss anyone off. Now your being pissed is getting me pissed.
Go fuck yourself you sour cunt. I didn't twist your arm into coming to this thread. I didn't even ask you a fucking question, I was talking to DSquid and LMNO.
Not that it's any consequence or that you likely give two shits, but I liked you and have learned a lot from you.
You'll make a great fucking professor some day with that shit attitude of yours.
Observe as the primate displays his dominance reaction in response to a perceived violation of his intellectual territory. Flared nostrils, excessive keyboard wear, and an attempt to anger the perceived alpha by aiming for the alpha's ambitions.
In our next segment, we will demonstrate the primate reacting to outside observation.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 22, 2011, 05:46:17 PM
In our next segment, we will demonstrate the primate reacting to outside observation.
How utterly meta, Doktor!
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 22, 2011, 05:48:10 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 22, 2011, 05:46:17 PM
In our next segment, we will demonstrate the primate reacting to outside observation.
How utterly meta, Doktor!
These are the sorts of sacrifices you have to make for SCIENCE, dude. Though I am sure I don't have to explain that to you.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 22, 2011, 05:46:17 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 22, 2011, 05:39:49 PM
Yeah, fuck me for trying to change the way I think by soliciting knowledge from people who know more than me about a subject.
What was I thinking?
Fuck it. I wasn't trying to piss anyone off. Now your being pissed is getting me pissed.
Go fuck yourself you sour cunt. I didn't twist your arm into coming to this thread. I didn't even ask you a fucking question, I was talking to DSquid and LMNO.
Not that it's any consequence or that you likely give two shits, but I liked you and have learned a lot from you.
You'll make a great fucking professor some day with that shit attitude of yours.
Observe as the primate displays his dominance reaction in response to a perceived violation of his intellectual territory. Flared nostrils, excessive keyboard wear, and an attempt to anger the perceived alpha by aiming for the alpha's ambitions.
In our next segment, we will demonstrate the primate reacting to outside observation.
:lulz:
that completely deflated any anger, real or mostly psuedo, that I had.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 22, 2011, 05:12:26 PM
It occurs to me that what Libertarians, etc, are trying to do is simplify the system, to inject some sort of simple order to it (not talking about the Koch Bros, here, but your average Starbucks-going, pay'bucker libertarian).
And we all know what happens when you try to impose order, especially a simple order on a complex system.
As one susceptible to this myself, i concur.
I also think that this is perhaps why engineering types seem to be especially drawn to the libertarian line of thinking. In engineering, we try to create systems to solve a problem, and often to handle problems that arise in the design phase we have engineering creep that leads to a kludgy, overly complex system. we have to fight this tendency continuously. When we see a system that solves the problem that it was designed to address with a seemingly particular
elegance we get doey eyed and pop a boner.
In the political arena, we can't really tell what will work with good precision before actually trying it out due to the complexity, and frequent irrationality, of human behavior. So, the mental models of these systems tend to be wrong, but when that's all you have to go on, and you treat it like a state machine with fully understood controls, libertarianism seems great.
I would also like to join DP in stating that this forum is a fantastic influence for someone with tendencies to libertarian idealism. I, for one, apologize for subjecting anyone here in the past to arguments that may make your neck veins bulge, and plea for understanding in any future occurrences of such. :)
Incidentally, the person whose ideas (as i understand them) i am most gravitating towards is ECH. semi-enlightened self interest solves all the philosophical quandaries for the individual, and fuck the rest of them. (forgive me if i'm misrepresenting your viewpoint, ECH.)
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 22, 2011, 05:51:46 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 22, 2011, 05:46:17 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 22, 2011, 05:39:49 PM
Yeah, fuck me for trying to change the way I think by soliciting knowledge from people who know more than me about a subject.
What was I thinking?
Fuck it. I wasn't trying to piss anyone off. Now your being pissed is getting me pissed.
Go fuck yourself you sour cunt. I didn't twist your arm into coming to this thread. I didn't even ask you a fucking question, I was talking to DSquid and LMNO.
Not that it's any consequence or that you likely give two shits, but I liked you and have learned a lot from you.
You'll make a great fucking professor some day with that shit attitude of yours.
Observe as the primate displays his dominance reaction in response to a perceived violation of his intellectual territory. Flared nostrils, excessive keyboard wear, and an attempt to anger the perceived alpha by aiming for the alpha's ambitions.
In our next segment, we will demonstrate the primate reacting to outside observation.
:lulz:
that completely deflated any anger, real or mostly psuedo, that I had.
I am a failure as an anthropologist. :cry:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 22, 2011, 05:54:38 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 22, 2011, 05:51:46 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 22, 2011, 05:46:17 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 22, 2011, 05:39:49 PM
Yeah, fuck me for trying to change the way I think by soliciting knowledge from people who know more than me about a subject.
What was I thinking?
Fuck it. I wasn't trying to piss anyone off. Now your being pissed is getting me pissed.
Go fuck yourself you sour cunt. I didn't twist your arm into coming to this thread. I didn't even ask you a fucking question, I was talking to DSquid and LMNO.
Not that it's any consequence or that you likely give two shits, but I liked you and have learned a lot from you.
You'll make a great fucking professor some day with that shit attitude of yours.
Observe as the primate displays his dominance reaction in response to a perceived violation of his intellectual territory. Flared nostrils, excessive keyboard wear, and an attempt to anger the perceived alpha by aiming for the alpha's ambitions.
In our next segment, we will demonstrate the primate reacting to outside observation.
:lulz:
that completely deflated any anger, real or mostly psuedo, that I had.
I am a failure as an anthropologist. :cry:
that's because you make a better comedian.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 22, 2011, 05:39:49 PM
Yeah, fuck me for trying to change the way I think by soliciting knowledge from people who know more than me about a subject.
What was I thinking?
Fuck it. I wasn't trying to piss anyone off. Now your being pissed is getting me pissed.
Go fuck yourself you sour cunt. I didn't twist your arm into coming to this thread. I didn't even ask you a fucking question, I was talking to DSquid and LMNO.
Not that it's any consequence or that you likely give two shits, but I liked you and have learned a lot from you.
You'll make a great fucking professor some day with that shit attitude of yours.
Want some cheese with that whine?
And someday, if you stop endorsing sociopathic political ideologies, you might make an OK human.
But I wouldn't bet on it. Idiot.
REMINDER: PARIS HILTON NOT BEING TAXED IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN POLITICAL STABILITY AND THE CONTINUATION OF THE DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM
\
:pickle:
I can't think of a single person that likes a self important asshole with a god complex.
Good luck with that.
Quote from: Iptuous on September 22, 2011, 05:52:51 PM
I also think that this is perhaps why engineering types seem to be especially drawn to the libertarian line of thinking. In engineering, we try to create systems to solve a problem, and often to handle problems that arise in the design phase we have engineering creep that leads to a kludgy, overly complex system. we have to fight this tendency continuously.
In all of my working life, I have known two (2) engineers that ever ATTEMPTED to fight this tendency, and none of the other engineers would talk to them. Engineers, in my experience, tend to be pot-bellied sacks of arrogance and dysfunction that would best serve mankind as some sort of lubricant, after being shoved through a chipper. They are almost exclusively waddling examples of Dunning/Kruger Syndrome. You can tell the few GOOD ones by the axle grease stains on their shirts and the mud on their boots (any engineer that wears shoes should be ass-raped with a slide rule).
The reason engineers tend to be libertarians is that engineers don't know SHIT about primates, and expect them to act in a predictable fashion, such as "voting in their own best interest". It's no coincidence that the 2 good engineers I've met have also laughed at libertarianism, because they understand Finagle and Murphy and Gilhooley, and none of the others do, except when pointing out flaws in another engineer's design during mating season, and when dealing with silly-ass electricians who do things based on a measley 30 years of experience.
Engineers are responsible for more chaos than anyone other than congressmen, though, so I guess we'll have to let you live.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 22, 2011, 05:59:58 PM
I can't think of a single person that likes a self important asshole with a god complex.
Good luck with that.
I do.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 22, 2011, 05:59:58 PM
I can't think of a single person that likes a self important asshole with a god complex.
Good luck with that.
Uh huh. Heard it all before. "Cain's an asshole. Cain's got a a God complex. Cain thinks he's smarter than everyone else." Maybe you should ask the Ludwig von Mises Institute to furnish an original insult for you, since they seem to do most of your other thinking.
Quote from: Cain on September 22, 2011, 06:01:39 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 22, 2011, 05:59:58 PM
I can't think of a single person that likes a self important asshole with a god complex.
Good luck with that.
Uh huh. Heard it all before. "Cain's an asshole. Cain's got a a God complex. Cain thinks he's smarter than everyone else." Maybe you should ask the Ludwig von Mises Institute to furnish an original insult for you, since they seem to do most of your other thinking.
I've had the misfortune of knowing several fools who, when hearing the same information from multiple, completely independent sources, didn't begin to consider that maybe, just maybe, it had some merit.
I'll regretfully add you to that list.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 22, 2011, 05:44:07 PM
I wonder if there's a way to separate "actually earned" income (I built a cabinet, I analyzed this document for errors, I cleaned this window), and "magically appeared" income (my savings account grew 5% for no other reason than it just sat in a bank, speculative trading, hedge funds), and then lower the taxes on "actually earned", and raise them on "magically appeared"?
It seems that would encourage people to make money doing things that at least did something in the real world.
Ok, I know in practice this would never happen, because the people with magically earned money make the rules, but are there any
other reasons this is a bad idea?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 22, 2011, 06:01:03 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on September 22, 2011, 05:52:51 PM
I also think that this is perhaps why engineering types seem to be especially drawn to the libertarian line of thinking. In engineering, we try to create systems to solve a problem, and often to handle problems that arise in the design phase we have engineering creep that leads to a kludgy, overly complex system. we have to fight this tendency continuously.
In all of my working life, I have known two (2) engineers that ever ATTEMPTED to fight this tendency, and none of the other engineers would talk to them. Engineers, in my experience, tend to be pot-bellied sacks of arrogance and dysfunction that would best serve mankind as some sort of lubricant, after being shoved through a chipper. They are almost exclusively waddling examples of Dunning/Kruger Syndrome. You can tell the few GOOD ones by the axle grease stains on their shirts and the mud on their boots (any engineer that wears shoes should be ass-raped with a slide rule).
The reason engineers tend to be libertarians is that engineers don't know SHIT about primates, and expect them to act in a predictable fashion, such as "voting in their own best interest". It's no coincidence that the 2 good engineers I've met have also laughed at libertarianism, because they understand Finagle and Murphy and Gilhooley, and none of the others do, except when pointing out flaws in another engineer's design during mating season, and when dealing with silly-ass electricians who do things based on a measley 30 years of experience.
Engineers are responsible for more chaos than anyone other than congressmen, though, so I guess we'll have to let you live.
hah!
pretty spot on assessment, as a generalization. :)
like they say, 'you can always tell an engineer. you just can't tell them
much!'
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 22, 2011, 06:10:58 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 22, 2011, 05:44:07 PM
I wonder if there's a way to separate "actually earned" income (I built a cabinet, I analyzed this document for errors, I cleaned this window), and "magically appeared" income (my savings account grew 5% for no other reason than it just sat in a bank, speculative trading, hedge funds), and then lower the taxes on "actually earned", and raise them on "magically appeared"?
It seems that would encourage people to make money doing things that at least did something in the real world.
Ok, I know in practice this would never happen, because the people with magically earned money make the rules, but are there any other reasons this is a bad idea?
isn't this the idea of capital gains taxes? the trend now is to reduce that in order to encourage investment, right?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 22, 2011, 06:10:58 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 22, 2011, 05:44:07 PM
I wonder if there's a way to separate "actually earned" income (I built a cabinet, I analyzed this document for errors, I cleaned this window), and "magically appeared" income (my savings account grew 5% for no other reason than it just sat in a bank, speculative trading, hedge funds), and then lower the taxes on "actually earned", and raise them on "magically appeared"?
It seems that would encourage people to make money doing things that at least did something in the real world.
Ok, I know in practice this would never happen, because the people with magically earned money make the rules, but are there any other reasons this is a bad idea?
I've always thought this was a great idea, actually. At the point where you've acquired enough money that the interest it earns is enough to quit your day job and allow you to lead a leisure lifestyle. What you do with your free time is your choice, but since you've made enough money that it doesn't require you to contribute anything at all, then it should also be returned to the system in order to benefit others.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 22, 2011, 06:15:20 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 22, 2011, 06:10:58 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 22, 2011, 05:44:07 PM
I wonder if there's a way to separate "actually earned" income (I built a cabinet, I analyzed this document for errors, I cleaned this window), and "magically appeared" income (my savings account grew 5% for no other reason than it just sat in a bank, speculative trading, hedge funds), and then lower the taxes on "actually earned", and raise them on "magically appeared"?
It seems that would encourage people to make money doing things that at least did something in the real world.
Ok, I know in practice this would never happen, because the people with magically earned money make the rules, but are there any other reasons this is a bad idea?
I've always thought this was a great idea, actually. At the point where you've acquired enough money that the interest it earns is enough to quit your day job and allow you to lead a leisure lifestyle. What you do with your free time is your choice, but since you've made enough money that it doesn't require you to contribute anything at all, then it should also be returned to the system in order to benefit others.
Please reconcile this with your previous stand against inheritance tax. Given that said tax doesn't kick in until the amount involved is two million dollars (which I , for one, could cheerfully live the rest of my life on), your positions are inconsistant.
Quote from: Iptuous on September 22, 2011, 06:13:47 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 22, 2011, 06:10:58 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 22, 2011, 05:44:07 PM
I wonder if there's a way to separate "actually earned" income (I built a cabinet, I analyzed this document for errors, I cleaned this window), and "magically appeared" income (my savings account grew 5% for no other reason than it just sat in a bank, speculative trading, hedge funds), and then lower the taxes on "actually earned", and raise them on "magically appeared"?
It seems that would encourage people to make money doing things that at least did something in the real world.
Ok, I know in practice this would never happen, because the people with magically earned money make the rules, but are there any other reasons this is a bad idea?
isn't this the idea of capital gains taxes? the trend now is to reduce that in order to encourage investment, right?
Beat me to it. I was going to say that we already do this separation, but we raise the taxes on "actually earned" and lower them on "magically appeared", so that billionaire hedge fund managers can pay less in taxes as a percentage of income than their thousandaire secretaries.
Quote from: Iptuous on September 22, 2011, 06:13:47 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 22, 2011, 06:10:58 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 22, 2011, 05:44:07 PM
I wonder if there's a way to separate "actually earned" income (I built a cabinet, I analyzed this document for errors, I cleaned this window), and "magically appeared" income (my savings account grew 5% for no other reason than it just sat in a bank, speculative trading, hedge funds), and then lower the taxes on "actually earned", and raise them on "magically appeared"?
It seems that would encourage people to make money doing things that at least did something in the real world.
Ok, I know in practice this would never happen, because the people with magically earned money make the rules, but are there any other reasons this is a bad idea?
isn't this the idea of capital gains taxes? the trend now is to reduce that in order to encourage investment, right?
And that's just BRILLIANT, because these spags will of course be investing in other countries, where slave labor ensures a nice fat - tax free - return.
Tax cuts should be tied to verifiable investment in companies at home. Good luck getting THAT though congress, though.
And I learned something. Thanks for the heads up, dok.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 22, 2011, 06:52:41 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on September 22, 2011, 06:13:47 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 22, 2011, 06:10:58 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 22, 2011, 05:44:07 PM
I wonder if there's a way to separate "actually earned" income (I built a cabinet, I analyzed this document for errors, I cleaned this window), and "magically appeared" income (my savings account grew 5% for no other reason than it just sat in a bank, speculative trading, hedge funds), and then lower the taxes on "actually earned", and raise them on "magically appeared"?
It seems that would encourage people to make money doing things that at least did something in the real world.
Ok, I know in practice this would never happen, because the people with magically earned money make the rules, but are there any other reasons this is a bad idea?
isn't this the idea of capital gains taxes? the trend now is to reduce that in order to encourage investment, right?
And that's just BRILLIANT, because these spags will of course be investing in other countries, where slave labor ensures a nice fat - tax free - return.
Tax cuts should be tied to verifiable investment in companies at home. Good luck getting THAT though congress, though.
Yup. is pretty messed up.
i think if it's invested in companies at home is when they screech that it is 'double taxation' as the corporations are taxed on their end, and then the investor is taxed on his end...
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 22, 2011, 06:52:41 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on September 22, 2011, 06:13:47 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 22, 2011, 06:10:58 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 22, 2011, 05:44:07 PM
I wonder if there's a way to separate "actually earned" income (I built a cabinet, I analyzed this document for errors, I cleaned this window), and "magically appeared" income (my savings account grew 5% for no other reason than it just sat in a bank, speculative trading, hedge funds), and then lower the taxes on "actually earned", and raise them on "magically appeared"?
It seems that would encourage people to make money doing things that at least did something in the real world.
Ok, I know in practice this would never happen, because the people with magically earned money make the rules, but are there any other reasons this is a bad idea?
isn't this the idea of capital gains taxes? the trend now is to reduce that in order to encourage investment, right?
And that's just BRILLIANT, because these spags will of course be investing in other countries, where slave labor ensures a nice fat - tax free - return.
Tax cuts should be tied to verifiable investment in companies at home. Good luck getting THAT though congress, though.
How much of Congress do you want to BET does this themselves in one way or another?
This is the problem with oligarchical systems such as we have--and we have probably one of the more diversified systems of government there is.
Financing of campaigns and their current "corporate backing wins all" methodology has unfortuantely been staving off what little "middle class" were able to squeeze through and gain seats in the legislature.
Quote from: Iptuous on September 22, 2011, 05:52:51 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 22, 2011, 05:12:26 PM
It occurs to me that what Libertarians, etc, are trying to do is simplify the system, to inject some sort of simple order to it (not talking about the Koch Bros, here, but your average Starbucks-going, pay'bucker libertarian).
And we all know what happens when you try to impose order, especially a simple order on a complex system.
As one susceptible to this myself, i concur.
I also think that this is perhaps why engineering types seem to be especially drawn to the libertarian line of thinking. In engineering, we try to create systems to solve a problem, and often to handle problems that arise in the design phase we have engineering creep that leads to a kludgy, overly complex system. we have to fight this tendency continuously. When we see a system that solves the problem that it was designed to address with a seemingly particular elegance we get doey eyed and pop a boner.
In the political arena, we can't really tell what will work with good precision before actually trying it out due to the complexity, and frequent irrationality, of human behavior. So, the mental models of these systems tend to be wrong, but when that's all you have to go on, and you treat it like a state machine with fully understood controls, libertarianism seems great.
I would also like to join DP in stating that this forum is a fantastic influence for someone with tendencies to libertarian idealism. I, for one, apologize for subjecting anyone here in the past to arguments that may make your neck veins bulge, and plea for understanding in any future occurrences of such. :)
Incidentally, the person whose ideas (as i understand them) i am most gravitating towards is ECH. semi-enlightened self interest solves all the philosophical quandaries for the individual, and fuck the rest of them. (forgive me if i'm misrepresenting your viewpoint, ECH.)
Nope, you're pretty much dead-on in that assessment. For anyone who is ever foolish or drunk enough to ask me IRL what my political views are, my response is "rational self-interest" (rational in this context meaning that sometimes my immediate self-interests have to take a backseat to a longer-term and/or more sustainable view of things).
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 22, 2011, 05:59:58 PM
I can't think of a single person that likes a self important asshole with a god complex.
:wave:
forget if this has been posted ITT or not already, but
(http://cdn.front.moveon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Warren-MAIN.jpg)
Quote from: Cramulus on September 28, 2011, 06:03:36 PM
forget if this has been posted ITT or not already, but
(http://cdn.front.moveon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Warren-MAIN.jpg)
I linked to the video of the speech, awhile back. Nice to hear, from a politician.
Whoops. I have a feeling this won't help her come election time.
http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2011/10/elizabeth-warren-says-she-created-intellectual-foundation-for-occupy-wall-street-movement/eXimmRDbpeHoNBkKRmOsBL/index.html?p1=News_links
Especially not after attacking them last week.
Oh, and it turns out that while Warren may have the right ideas re: financial reform, she's very keen on incarceration for drug offences and continuing overseas adventures.
I'd like a closer look at who is funding her campaign also.
Quote from: Cain on October 26, 2011, 06:01:47 PM
she's very keen on incarceration for drug offences and continuing overseas adventures.
I'd like a closer look at who is funding her campaign also.
Well, damn. Guess I'm gonna have to Rationalize this one out-- a cost/benefit ratio, or something.
Quote
"The hardest part of being around this kid," she said, "is that he has the most delicious-looking toes."
OMG and she's a cannibal!
I've heard rumours (and I stress they are only rumours so far) that she is backed by the same set of financial interests as Obama, that in fact the White House is very keen to have her elected.
Also, she has the endorsement and backing of Harry Reid, one of the most corrupt politicians in the country, bar none.
Yves Smith, of Naked Capitalism, has this to say about Warren as well:
QuoteAs much as your humble blogger still regards Elizabeth Warren as preferable to Scott Brown in the Massachusetts Senate race, the evidence from her campaign is that she is no progressive, unless you define "progressive" to mean "centrist/Hamilton Project Democrat willing to throw a few extra bones to the average Joe."
We've warned repeatedly that Warren not being all that left leaning was a real possibility. Her views on anything other than consumer banking regulation were unknown; she was a Republican prior to her conversion experience through extensive research into bankruptcies, which revealed that the overwhelming majority were responsible people who hit a stretch of serious bad luck. As much as her and her daughter's book The Two Income Trap is well thought out and argued, they structured the problem as narrowly as possible, around the bidding war for housing and how it led more wives into the workforce, ending their role as secret insurance policy/potential breadwinner. The bigger frame, which Warren ignored, was stagnant worker wages and rising income disparity. Including those issues would have led Warren to consider issues like taxation (how income taxes have become less progressive and have also become more favorable to income from capital) and our multinational-favoring trade deals, and our lobbying-driven industrial policy.
A particularly ugly revelation came in the Boston Herald. On the one hand, the Herald is far from in the Warren camp, so it is possible that her remarks were taken out of context. But on the other, the Herald would see saber rattling as a plus, which perversely means they'd be less likely to exaggerate her views:
Quote"Our number one responsibility is to protect Americans from terrorism, that's our job, so being tough on terrorism is enormously important," said Warren yesterday at a campaign stop in Gloucester.
"We should take nothing off the table, but the facts are still emerging," the Senate candidate said when asked if she would support military action against Iran.
Huh? Protecting Americans against terrorism is number one? That means it ranks ahead of the rule of law, among other things. And this from a law professor. Glad we got that clear.
QuoteClick through to the video here and watch starting at 49:50. The question is "What do you think of the Occupy protests and would you join them?" Two candidates have a go before Warren, giving her time to think. Each answers the question in a direct manner, the first expressing enthusiasm and saying he would join them, the second expressing sympathy and saying he has physical issues that prevent him from participating, but if he were able, he'd probably go. Each gets a positive reaction from the audience.
Warren, by contrast, pointedly avoids giving a straight response and goes a bit off the rails. Her first statement is about obeying the law, and several readers took it to mean she was accusing OWS of being a bunch of lawbreakers. She gave the impression that she's more concerned about whether they play by the rules or not than whether they have real concerns (and those concerns are broader than just bad behavior by banks). Then she talks about how the banks broke the country mortgage by bad mortgage. She may have meant that as part of her "obey the law" message, but it comes off like an effort to save a flubbed opener. Then she says that's why she wants to run for Senate. In other words, her message, at best, is she doesn't agree with how OWS is seeking to effect change. They should vote for people like her instead.
Similarly, there's a troubling part to the preamble to her now famous "nobody got rich on their own" clip. She's evidently been asked about the budget deficits, and she lists three major causes, tax cuts for the rich, failure to raise taxes to pay for the two Iraq wars, and a Medicare drug plan that was a huge gimmie for Big Pharma. That's actually not true. Far and away the biggest driver the growth of our Federal debt, bringing it from roughly 23% of GDP to 75% of GDP, was the global financial crisis. The US suffered both a plunge in tax receipts and an increase in spending due primarily to automatic stablizers like food stamps, where spending goes up in bad times (the stimulus package contributed only at the margin).
But there is more worrisome subtext to her brief discussion here. She talks about putting the Iraq wars on a credit card and leaving future generations to pay for them. She seems to have fallen for the balance budget meme, when the proper role of government fiscal policy is to accommodate the actions of the private sector, meaning households and business. Households want to save for retirement and emergencies, and the tacit assumption is business invests household savings. But as we've discussed in earlier posts, businesses have ceased being proper capitalists and have also been net savers, even during the last expansion, since 2003. Unless a country is running a trade surplus, and the US is not in that category, the government needs to accommodate the desire of the private sector to save by deficit spending. Otherwise wages fall and the economy contracts, and that makes the debt to GDP ratio worse.
Now it is difficult to be certain based on these brief comments, but Warren seemed to regard the debt problem as serious, meaning she'd support Obama's deficit hawkery, which is not a sound approach right now. Moreover, her "don't do things like that again" is unrealistic. She'd clearly favor reversing tax breaks for the rich, which would be a good start, but even if you buy here analysis, that's not a sufficient solution. Her stance on Iran makes it hard to back shrinking the military. And our earlier post tonight citing the work of Tom Ferguson tells us that Congresscritters fall in line with what the leadership wants, and the leadership is bought and paid for by special interest groups. The health care lobby outspends the banks. If she thinks she can dent the influence of Big Pharma on legislation, she is smoking something very strong.
Mind you, if you are in Massachusetts, I am not telling you not to vote for Warren. I am simply warning you that she is not the Great Progressive Hope. She came to a strongly liberal view on a comparatively narrow set of issues, on how banks have looted customers, based on intensive research. She does not have that depth of expertise on many, if any, of the other topics she opines on. She has surrounded herself with mainstream Democratic advisors, the bulk of them with links to Harvard. She may wrap her views in populist rhetoric, but I strongly suspect, ex banking reform and other consumer protections, she'll be far more centrist than most of her enthusiasts anticipate.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on October 26, 2011, 05:27:31 PM
Whoops. I have a feeling this won't help her come election time.
http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2011/10/elizabeth-warren-says-she-created-intellectual-foundation-for-occupy-wall-street-movement/eXimmRDbpeHoNBkKRmOsBL/index.html?p1=News_links
ehh could spin either way. She does deserve some credit for being one of the few people attacking wall street over the last few years. Her videos being passed around like crazy while this project was kicking off. Most of the Wall St protesters I speak of her very fondly. Quotes like these make people nervous because they get framed like she's trying to co-opt or claim credit for the movement... but in the followup interviews, she's explained herself and her quote pretty clearly
she elaborates her position here: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/10/26/warren_could_emerge_as_voice_of_occupy_wall_street_boston/
Quote from: Cain on October 26, 2011, 06:01:47 PM
Oh, and it turns out that while Warren may have the right ideas re: financial reform, she's very keen on incarceration for drug offences and continuing overseas adventures.
I don't think this tips the scales, IMO. Scott Brown is still clearly the shittier choice.
He's with the tea party, for one.
Scott Brown believes that drugs are a legal issue, not a health issue. He has voted against substance abuse programs.
He supports "enhanced interrogation", and is against granting constitutional rights to enemy combatants. He voted yes on extending the patriot act's roving wiretaps.
Scott Brown is also in favor of adventures in the mid-east and wants to see us send more troops to Afghanistan.
He voted against same-sex marriage.
Brown strongly favors imposing the death penalty in Massachussets.
So given the choice between Brown and Warren... still no contest.
I must have missed the part where I posted that Scott Brown was better than Elizabeth Warren.
Yeah, I was pretty sure that everything I've posted in this thread is less "vote for Brown" and more "don't delude yourself that Warren is anything other than another scummy politician who just happens to be slightly less scummy than the guy she's running against."
I was just comparing the two, I didn't mean to imply that you guys love scott brown
Good, because that shiftless sonofabitch didn't even buy me dinner the last time we hooked up.
This amuses me.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/08/slavery-is-freedom-and-all-that/
QuoteNo line of attack is too bizarre, too much in contradiction both with the facts and with everything else the right says, to be out of bounds.
And so I'm not as surprised as Greg Sargent seems to be that Karl Rove's latest line of attack against Elizabeth Warren is that she's too close to Wall Street. Hey, she oversaw the use of TARP funds!
Greg takes this as a sign that Democrats are winning the argument, and it is. But they also have to win the election. And this wouldn't be the first time that nonsensical arguments that rely on voter ignorance about who stands for what have worked.