hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 2815 of 2844 FirstFirst ... 1815231527152765280528122813281428152816281728182825 ... LastLast
Results 56,281 to 56,300 of 56876

Thread: USA Politics Thread

  1. #56281
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    13,648
    Some rather lively discussion the past few days. Not all of it civil, sadly.

    I'm just going to leave a few comments here based on my own personal beliefs in light of reading the past few pages, take them as you like, trash them if you like:

    1. Libertarianism (a belief in keeping Government out of the personal/private lives of citizens as much as possible/reasonable) isn't such a bad idea when taken at the right points, over the right issues, in moderation. "Why should the Govt. tell me I must do X/cannot do X" and "Why should Government perform this function" are not bad starting points for any discussion of public policy. Like any belief, when taken to extremes (there should be no Govt. and no taxes!) it is problematic, but in the right place it has value IMO. But the opposite is also true, abandonment of individual rights is a slope I'd prefer not to slip down. The road to hell is paved with trampled human rights and "the greater good of all society" intentions.

    2. Government is absolutely vital to a civilized society. The problem is not about Government existence or society giving power to Government to do things for us all collectively. The problem, as I see it, is a public almost completely detached from the actions and operation of Government, who vote in only a tiny fraction in elections, and partake (as in Public Comment period and the like) at an infinitesimal rate, in their own governance. You get the Government you deserve, and a body public who chooses to not perform oversight over, on exert control over, it's Government tend to get a Government that can be wasteful, fraudulent and abusive of individual rights at times. Get active, take part, vote, take interest, be open to new and different ideas and beliefs, and hold your Government and elected leaders accountable. And things will get better.

    3. The single biggest problem in American politics today IMO is that both sides partisans have decided that they know the true heart and intentions of the other side, and that those intentions are pure, distilled evil. Not wrong, not mistaken, not the belief of a fellow human.....no, that the holder of such a belief is evil and must be put down, one way or another. It's very very sad. And every day it seems to get worse. People can no longer just be misinformed, or wrongheaded, or illogical in their formation of beliefs, or (lo) even hold a differing belief despite having a positive intend.....no, it's evil, and that's it. Dehumanization of the political opponent is near universal now. No compromise, only rhetorical war.
    Last edited by Alistair; December 3 2018 at 04:47:36 PM.


  2. #56282
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    17,359
    1. Right Libertarianism cannot achieve any of the stated aims of emancipation of the individual from state authority while it embraces private ownership of capital and an obsession with capital markets and employer/employee labour relationships. It is just replacing the central authority boogieman with a thousand little tyrants who own workplaces and who are all beholden to those who ultimate control access to capital (exacerbating the current environment).

    2. Governance is vital to a civilised society, a government is not a perquisite for governance. Especially not a government detached from the ideals of democratic consensus due to power sharing agreements between government parties and state institutions.

    3. America doesn't have a single biggest problem.
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  3. #56283
    Dorvil Barranis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 18, 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    5,111
    Quote Originally Posted by walrus View Post
    ccpl_fisher was the republican poster that were bullseyeing turtles from his porch.
    Thanks for having a good memory. I, for one, live in Colorado
    "Those who are skilled in combat do not become angered, those who are skilled at winning do not become afraid. Thus the wise win before they fight, while the ignorant fight to win." - Zhuge Liang


  4. #56284
    Bartholomeus Crane's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    7,955
    Whether the government should be involved for every policy is a perfectly valid question to ask, I think. And we can discuss 'the state should be as big as it needs to be, and no bigger', and what that means in practice. I'm sure we'll have a difference of opinion on that, but it's a worthwhile discussion to have.

    The problem I have with the Libertarians is that their answer to that question is invariably: 'no'. And personally, that answer is particularly evil when you consider that is their answer to questions about healthcare, social welfare, housing, etc. as well. Because there are people in our societies who are ill, vulnerable, and simply need someone to take care of them. Many through no fault of their own. For example because of age or ill health.

    And to just let them die in some alley or street; which would be, for many, the result of answering 'no' to those questions, is, to me at least, an abhorrent abnegation of the social responsibility everyone in society has towards their fellow man (or woman). It is, in that way, simply an unacceptable answer in this day and age, and in civil society. And as such, is, in fact, evil, pure and simple.

    Now we can expect such an answer from the puerile, even the infantile, when the world is still your oyster (i.e., living off your parents), but at one point one should really grow up and acquire the mental facilities to look through the massive amount of internal inconsistencies that are part and parcel of what goes for Libertarianism, and put it back in the box with your model planes and dinky toys.

    And if you refuse or can't do that, and still keep spouting the most anti-social and evil nonsense; well then that is you dehumanising yourself, not the other way round.
    Quote Originally Posted by Miep View Post
    ...i have no idea whats realy going on...

  5. #56285
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    13,648
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Whether the government should be involved for every policy is a perfectly valid question to ask, I think. And we can discuss 'the state should be as big as it needs to be, and no bigger', and what that means in practice. I'm sure we'll have a difference of opinion on that, but it's a worthwhile discussion to have.

    The problem I have with the Libertarians is that their answer to that question is invariably: 'no'. And personally, that answer is particularly evil when you consider that is their answer to questions about healthcare, social welfare, housing, etc. as well. Because there are people in our societies who are ill, vulnerable, and simply need someone to take care of them. Many through no fault of their own. For example because of age or ill health.

    And to just let them die in some alley or street; which would be, for many, the result of answering 'no' to those questions, is, to me at least, an abhorrent abnegation of the social responsibility everyone in society has towards their fellow man (or woman). It is, in that way, simply an unacceptable answer in this day and age, and in civil society. And as such, is, in fact, evil, pure and simple.

    Now we can expect such an answer from the puerile, even the infantile, when the world is still your oyster (i.e., living off your parents), but at one point one should really grow up and acquire the mental facilities to look through the massive amount of internal inconsistencies that are part and parcel of what goes for Libertarianism, and put it back in the box with your model planes and dinky toys.

    And if you refuse or can't do that, and still keep spouting the most anti-social and evil nonsense; well then that is you dehumanising yourself, not the other way round.
    If you see a person in your society who is ill, vulnerable, or simply needs someone to take care of them and your government system has failed to help them, do you personally do everything you can to help them?

    If you do not, is that an internal inconsistency in your belief system?

    If you do not, are you evil, anti-social or have you dehumanized yourself, despite your political support for better Government aid systems, systems (it is valid to note) you will not personally be expected to pay a material amount more to help fund?

    Is support for the system doing more the most meaningful qualifier as to humanity and evil?

    What of someone who does not support your political policy belief system, but personally donates tens of millions to help people in need?

    Are they still "evil", while you (who pay only a few thousand in general use taxes, say) are not evil because you think everyone should pay for helping the needy?

    Is it really as simple as "believe in the universal welfare state and you are good, do not and you are evil"?

    Even if I agree with you that society via Government should do more, these questions should still be answered. It is an easy moral out to say "I support more social aid!" and yet do nothing personally to help individuals, or to foster the change you claim you want and would potentially pay very little towards should it ever come about.


  6. #56286
    Malcanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    14,712
    Quote Originally Posted by Stoffl View Post
    oh right....My apologies to ssgt sniper then
    No it's OK, he's fine with making sweeping generalisations about people.
    Quote Originally Posted by Keieueue View Post
    I love Malcanis!

  7. #56287
    Malcanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    14,712
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Whether the government should be involved for every policy is a perfectly valid question to ask, I think. And we can discuss 'the state should be as big as it needs to be, and no bigger', and what that means in practice. I'm sure we'll have a difference of opinion on that, but it's a worthwhile discussion to have.

    The problem I have with the Libertarians is that their answer to that question is invariably: 'no'. And personally, that answer is particularly evil when you consider that is their answer to questions about healthcare, social welfare, housing, etc. as well. Because there are people in our societies who are ill, vulnerable, and simply need someone to take care of them. Many through no fault of their own. For example because of age or ill health.

    And to just let them die in some alley or street; which would be, for many, the result of answering 'no' to those questions, is, to me at least, an abhorrent abnegation of the social responsibility everyone in society has towards their fellow man (or woman). It is, in that way, simply an unacceptable answer in this day and age, and in civil society. And as such, is, in fact, evil, pure and simple.

    Now we can expect such an answer from the puerile, even the infantile, when the world is still your oyster (i.e., living off your parents), but at one point one should really grow up and acquire the mental facilities to look through the massive amount of internal inconsistencies that are part and parcel of what goes for Libertarianism, and put it back in the box with your model planes and dinky toys.

    And if you refuse or can't do that, and still keep spouting the most anti-social and evil nonsense; well then that is you dehumanising yourself, not the other way round.
    If you see a person in your society who is ill, vulnerable, or simply needs someone to take care of them and your government system has failed to help them, do you personally do everything you can to help them?
    Alistair, if you were on fire and screaming in fear and pain and I, by chance, wandered by, would you feel that there was some flaw in my reasoning, some gap in the logical process, if I said "Well I don't see anyone else pissing on you, so there's no moral imperative for me to do it either"?
    Quote Originally Posted by Keieueue View Post
    I love Malcanis!

  8. #56288
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    11,727
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    It is an easy moral out to say "I support more social aid!" and yet do nothing personally to help individuals, or to foster the change you claim you want and would potentially pay very little towards should it ever come about.
    This is a retarded point and you should feel bad making it. You or I, like most other people, could not personally (well, I don't want to assume where you are at, Daddy Warbucks, but I will anyway) afford to help very many people, yet if we paid a fractional amount, like, say, an extra dollar a year, well, collectively, we can help many, many more. It has nothing to do with welfare state, or making people bootstrap, or anything else to me. It is simply the most efficient way to collect a meaningful amount of money that can be used to benefit the commons.

    If some millionaire like gates wants to throw a whole bunch in, good for him. It shouldn't even dent his tax burden, imo.

    Quite frankly, giving everyone in america $2,200 a year would be a far better use of our money than the retardedly overpriced military we have.
    meh

  9. #56289

    Join Date
    August 18, 2014
    Posts
    235
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Whether the government should be involved for every policy is a perfectly valid question to ask, I think. And we can discuss 'the state should be as big as it needs to be, and no bigger', and what that means in practice. I'm sure we'll have a difference of opinion on that, but it's a worthwhile discussion to have.

    The problem I have with the Libertarians is that their answer to that question is invariably: 'no'. And personally, that answer is particularly evil when you consider that is their answer to questions about healthcare, social welfare, housing, etc. as well. Because there are people in our societies who are ill, vulnerable, and simply need someone to take care of them. Many through no fault of their own. For example because of age or ill health.

    And to just let them die in some alley or street; which would be, for many, the result of answering 'no' to those questions, is, to me at least, an abhorrent abnegation of the social responsibility everyone in society has towards their fellow man (or woman). It is, in that way, simply an unacceptable answer in this day and age, and in civil society. And as such, is, in fact, evil, pure and simple.

    Now we can expect such an answer from the puerile, even the infantile, when the world is still your oyster (i.e., living off your parents), but at one point one should really grow up and acquire the mental facilities to look through the massive amount of internal inconsistencies that are part and parcel of what goes for Libertarianism, and put it back in the box with your model planes and dinky toys.

    And if you refuse or can't do that, and still keep spouting the most anti-social and evil nonsense; well then that is you dehumanising yourself, not the other way round.
    So you have chosen your side, well done.

    There are two models of thought on the 'evolution' of the human species. One, such as yours, is the all life is priceless, and must be maintained no matter the cost.
    The second model is the survival of the fittest, the human race needs to be lean in order to survive what we have done. We will carry the species forward, but if members cannot keep up, that is the way it is.

    The current bullshit is the people that won't pick one of those sides, that think to truly be evolved humans will be able to turn water into wine, walk on water, and other such impossibilities.
    Now in full candor, I have stated similar in my lifetime, that if humans were truly evolved, we would not only be able to guess the weather, but influence it; and there might be people that legitimately think that our species needs to evolve above our current material existence. That won't happen when so many of our species struggle with surviving our current experience.

    Perhaps the former needs to happen for the latter to happen, but most assuredly the people that refuse to pick a side are only out to enrich themselves at the cost of their species.

  10. #56290
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    13,648
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Whether the government should be involved for every policy is a perfectly valid question to ask, I think. And we can discuss 'the state should be as big as it needs to be, and no bigger', and what that means in practice. I'm sure we'll have a difference of opinion on that, but it's a worthwhile discussion to have.

    The problem I have with the Libertarians is that their answer to that question is invariably: 'no'. And personally, that answer is particularly evil when you consider that is their answer to questions about healthcare, social welfare, housing, etc. as well. Because there are people in our societies who are ill, vulnerable, and simply need someone to take care of them. Many through no fault of their own. For example because of age or ill health.

    And to just let them die in some alley or street; which would be, for many, the result of answering 'no' to those questions, is, to me at least, an abhorrent abnegation of the social responsibility everyone in society has towards their fellow man (or woman). It is, in that way, simply an unacceptable answer in this day and age, and in civil society. And as such, is, in fact, evil, pure and simple.

    Now we can expect such an answer from the puerile, even the infantile, when the world is still your oyster (i.e., living off your parents), but at one point one should really grow up and acquire the mental facilities to look through the massive amount of internal inconsistencies that are part and parcel of what goes for Libertarianism, and put it back in the box with your model planes and dinky toys.

    And if you refuse or can't do that, and still keep spouting the most anti-social and evil nonsense; well then that is you dehumanising yourself, not the other way round.
    If you see a person in your society who is ill, vulnerable, or simply needs someone to take care of them and your government system has failed to help them, do you personally do everything you can to help them?
    Alistair, if you were on fire and screaming in fear and pain and I, by chance, wandered by, would you feel that there was some flaw in my reasoning, some gap in the logical process, if I said "Well I don't see anyone else pissing on you, so there's no moral imperative for me to do it either"?
    If I were on fire, and you did anything other then immediately try and put me out and/or immediately get help to put me out, you would, in my judgement, be a bad person.

    If your only response to seeing me on fire was to grab some marshmallows and mutter something like "well, the system should really help people like that, I'm going to be sure to vote (maybe, if I feel like it that day) for someone who supports aid for those on fire, if only those damn evil righties would stop blocking such laws", you would, in my judgement, be a bad person.

    I would not give you an pat on the back or a sociopolitical pass for your high moral standards in your political ideology while you did nothing to help the literal burning man in front of you. :insert gif of Alistair on fire:


  11. #56291
    Djan Seriy Anaplian's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    London
    Posts
    4,090
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Whether the government should be involved for every policy is a perfectly valid question to ask, I think. And we can discuss 'the state should be as big as it needs to be, and no bigger', and what that means in practice. I'm sure we'll have a difference of opinion on that, but it's a worthwhile discussion to have.

    The problem I have with the Libertarians is that their answer to that question is invariably: 'no'. And personally, that answer is particularly evil when you consider that is their answer to questions about healthcare, social welfare, housing, etc. as well. Because there are people in our societies who are ill, vulnerable, and simply need someone to take care of them. Many through no fault of their own. For example because of age or ill health.

    And to just let them die in some alley or street; which would be, for many, the result of answering 'no' to those questions, is, to me at least, an abhorrent abnegation of the social responsibility everyone in society has towards their fellow man (or woman). It is, in that way, simply an unacceptable answer in this day and age, and in civil society. And as such, is, in fact, evil, pure and simple.

    Now we can expect such an answer from the puerile, even the infantile, when the world is still your oyster (i.e., living off your parents), but at one point one should really grow up and acquire the mental facilities to look through the massive amount of internal inconsistencies that are part and parcel of what goes for Libertarianism, and put it back in the box with your model planes and dinky toys.

    And if you refuse or can't do that, and still keep spouting the most anti-social and evil nonsense; well then that is you dehumanising yourself, not the other way round.
    If you see a person in your society who is ill, vulnerable, or simply needs someone to take care of them and your government system has failed to help them, do you personally do everything you can to help them?

    If you do not, is that an internal inconsistency in your belief system?

    If you do not, are you evil, anti-social or have you dehumanized yourself, despite your political support for better Government aid systems, systems (it is valid to note) you will not personally be expected to pay a material amount more to help fund?

    Is support for the system doing more the most meaningful qualifier as to humanity and evil?

    What of someone who does not support your political policy belief system, but personally donates tens of millions to help people in need?

    Are they still "evil", while you (who pay only a few thousand in general use taxes, say) are not evil because you think everyone should pay for helping the needy?

    Is it really as simple as "believe in the universal welfare state and you are good, do not and you are evil"?

    Even if I agree with you that society via Government should do more, these questions should still be answered. It is an easy moral out to say "I support more social aid!" and yet do nothing personally to help individuals, or to foster the change you claim you want and would potentially pay very little towards should it ever come about.
    ho ho m8, false equivalences up in here!

  12. #56292

    Join Date
    November 5, 2011
    Posts
    11,642
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Whether the government should be involved for every policy is a perfectly valid question to ask, I think. And we can discuss 'the state should be as big as it needs to be, and no bigger', and what that means in practice. I'm sure we'll have a difference of opinion on that, but it's a worthwhile discussion to have.

    The problem I have with the Libertarians is that their answer to that question is invariably: 'no'. And personally, that answer is particularly evil when you consider that is their answer to questions about healthcare, social welfare, housing, etc. as well. Because there are people in our societies who are ill, vulnerable, and simply need someone to take care of them. Many through no fault of their own. For example because of age or ill health.

    And to just let them die in some alley or street; which would be, for many, the result of answering 'no' to those questions, is, to me at least, an abhorrent abnegation of the social responsibility everyone in society has towards their fellow man (or woman). It is, in that way, simply an unacceptable answer in this day and age, and in civil society. And as such, is, in fact, evil, pure and simple.

    Now we can expect such an answer from the puerile, even the infantile, when the world is still your oyster (i.e., living off your parents), but at one point one should really grow up and acquire the mental facilities to look through the massive amount of internal inconsistencies that are part and parcel of what goes for Libertarianism, and put it back in the box with your model planes and dinky toys.

    And if you refuse or can't do that, and still keep spouting the most anti-social and evil nonsense; well then that is you dehumanising yourself, not the other way round.
    If you see a person in your society who is ill, vulnerable, or simply needs someone to take care of them and your government system has failed to help them, do you personally do everything you can to help them?

    If you do not, is that an internal inconsistency in your belief system?

    If you do not, are you evil, anti-social or have you dehumanized yourself, despite your political support for better Government aid systems, systems (it is valid to note) you will not personally be expected to pay a material amount more to help fund?

    Is support for the system doing more the most meaningful qualifier as to humanity and evil?

    What of someone who does not support your political policy belief system, but personally donates tens of millions to help people in need?

    Are they still "evil", while you (who pay only a few thousand in general use taxes, say) are not evil because you think everyone should pay for helping the needy?

    Is it really as simple as "believe in the universal welfare state and you are good, do not and you are evil"?

    Even if I agree with you that society via Government should do more, these questions should still be answered. It is an easy moral out to say "I support more social aid!" and yet do nothing personally to help individuals, or to foster the change you claim you want and would potentially pay very little towards should it ever come about.
    Why do you always come back a bit more fucking retarded?

  13. #56293
    Varcaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 15, 2011
    Posts
    20,668
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Caine View Post
    Hey everyone....next time you accuse Alistair of secretly being a hardcore Republican, remember this little episode. Real crazy just doesn’t stay that hidden.

    Fucking hell.
    This post aged well

  14. #56294
    Bartholomeus Crane's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    7,955
    Quote Originally Posted by Djan Seriy Anaplian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Whether the government should be involved for every policy is a perfectly valid question to ask, I think. And we can discuss 'the state should be as big as it needs to be, and no bigger', and what that means in practice. I'm sure we'll have a difference of opinion on that, but it's a worthwhile discussion to have.

    The problem I have with the Libertarians is that their answer to that question is invariably: 'no'. And personally, that answer is particularly evil when you consider that is their answer to questions about healthcare, social welfare, housing, etc. as well. Because there are people in our societies who are ill, vulnerable, and simply need someone to take care of them. Many through no fault of their own. For example because of age or ill health.

    And to just let them die in some alley or street; which would be, for many, the result of answering 'no' to those questions, is, to me at least, an abhorrent abnegation of the social responsibility everyone in society has towards their fellow man (or woman). It is, in that way, simply an unacceptable answer in this day and age, and in civil society. And as such, is, in fact, evil, pure and simple.

    Now we can expect such an answer from the puerile, even the infantile, when the world is still your oyster (i.e., living off your parents), but at one point one should really grow up and acquire the mental facilities to look through the massive amount of internal inconsistencies that are part and parcel of what goes for Libertarianism, and put it back in the box with your model planes and dinky toys.

    And if you refuse or can't do that, and still keep spouting the most anti-social and evil nonsense; well then that is you dehumanising yourself, not the other way round.
    If you see a person in your society who is ill, vulnerable, or simply needs someone to take care of them and your government system has failed to help them, do you personally do everything you can to help them?

    If you do not, is that an internal inconsistency in your belief system?

    If you do not, are you evil, anti-social or have you dehumanized yourself, despite your political support for better Government aid systems, systems (it is valid to note) you will not personally be expected to pay a material amount more to help fund?

    Is support for the system doing more the most meaningful qualifier as to humanity and evil?

    What of someone who does not support your political policy belief system, but personally donates tens of millions to help people in need?

    Are they still "evil", while you (who pay only a few thousand in general use taxes, say) are not evil because you think everyone should pay for helping the needy?

    Is it really as simple as "believe in the universal welfare state and you are good, do not and you are evil"?

    Even if I agree with you that society via Government should do more, these questions should still be answered. It is an easy moral out to say "I support more social aid!" and yet do nothing personally to help individuals, or to foster the change you claim you want and would potentially pay very little towards should it ever come about.
    ho ho m8, false equivalences up in here!
    I was just about to post that!

    The fact remains, I pay into the system, and I help out where I can, particularly within my social circle and family. I feel I have nothing to be ashamed about when it comes to that. But I will be damned if I boast about it on an internet spaceships serious business forum!

    The point was, though, that Libertarianism, especially, goes out of its way to condemn paying into the system, and helping out where you can. Their answer, specifically to state sanctioned aid, of any kind, is always: no. It's not just 'I've got mine, jack', which is bad enough as it is, it is: 'let them die'. And that, and I don't use the term lightly, is an evil attitude. There's just no other word that can describe that. Whatever false equivalences you'd like to draw to challenge that statement.

    In my worldview people have a duty not only towards themselves and their kin, but towards everyone else as well. No person is an island, and everyone has a social responsibility as well as a personal responsibility to live up to. And that means, preventing, or striving to prevent, other people's suffering. I'm certainly no fan of the nanny state, or even big government. But I can't think of a better way to redistribute wealth, including my own, fairly and efficiently than through a properly operating and operated government. And because I think that is the case, I actively strive, through democratic means, to bring such a government around. Because such a government, in the end, is the adequate means to do good to all.

    I knowing full well that Utopia will never be reached, but is damned well worth fighting for to get there!
    Quote Originally Posted by Miep View Post
    ...i have no idea whats realy going on...

  15. #56295
    Donor Spaztick's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    No Longer up High Sierra's Ass
    Posts
    9,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    1. Right Libertarianism cannot achieve any of the stated aims of emancipation of the individual from state authority while it embraces private ownership of capital and an obsession with capital markets and employer/employee labour relationships. It is just replacing the central authority boogieman with a thousand little tyrants who own workplaces and who are all beholden to those who ultimate control access to capital (exacerbating the current environment).
    I would argue that this is good, not in a moral or idealistic sense but in the sense that you will always have the nobility and the peasantry, the bourgeoisie and the bourgeois, the elite and the masses, etc etc. and the 1000 small tyrants are the lesser evil than the 1 massive one. James Madison in the Federalist papers wrote that a large republic is necessary to combat the political factions that form so they are fighting each other for power instead of the people, which is (usually) what happens in a well-established industry or where there's competition for skilled labor. The unskilled migrant worker that picks fruit for a living or the wage-slave at McDonald's has very little power, but he has no leverage to begin with because of the enormous unskilled labor pool to pull from. In the inverse it's hard to argue you're oppressed if you are an engineer whose employment rage is negative and can negotiate excellent salary and benefits from your employer, or you're an attorney with lots of political connections and partnership in your law firm.

    Obviously we don't or can't have a perfect large republic where every common man is shielded from the employer he works for by other employers competing for his labor, but we've steadily been marching in circles for millennia over the issue, and in this age of liberties there is nothing stopping someone from opening their own business or establishing a co-op or collective.

  16. #56296
    Bartholomeus Crane's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    7,955
    Quote Originally Posted by Ego Proxy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Whether the government should be involved for every policy is a perfectly valid question to ask, I think. And we can discuss 'the state should be as big as it needs to be, and no bigger', and what that means in practice. I'm sure we'll have a difference of opinion on that, but it's a worthwhile discussion to have.

    The problem I have with the Libertarians is that their answer to that question is invariably: 'no'. And personally, that answer is particularly evil when you consider that is their answer to questions about healthcare, social welfare, housing, etc. as well. Because there are people in our societies who are ill, vulnerable, and simply need someone to take care of them. Many through no fault of their own. For example because of age or ill health.

    And to just let them die in some alley or street; which would be, for many, the result of answering 'no' to those questions, is, to me at least, an abhorrent abnegation of the social responsibility everyone in society has towards their fellow man (or woman). It is, in that way, simply an unacceptable answer in this day and age, and in civil society. And as such, is, in fact, evil, pure and simple.

    Now we can expect such an answer from the puerile, even the infantile, when the world is still your oyster (i.e., living off your parents), but at one point one should really grow up and acquire the mental facilities to look through the massive amount of internal inconsistencies that are part and parcel of what goes for Libertarianism, and put it back in the box with your model planes and dinky toys.

    And if you refuse or can't do that, and still keep spouting the most anti-social and evil nonsense; well then that is you dehumanising yourself, not the other way round.
    So you have chosen your side, well done.

    There are two models of thought on the 'evolution' of the human species. One, such as yours, is the all life is priceless, and must be maintained no matter the cost.
    The second model is the survival of the fittest, the human race needs to be lean in order to survive what we have done. We will carry the species forward, but if members cannot keep up, that is the way it is.

    The current bullshit is the people that won't pick one of those sides, that think to truly be evolved humans will be able to turn water into wine, walk on water, and other such impossibilities.
    Now in full candor, I have stated similar in my lifetime, that if humans were truly evolved, we would not only be able to guess the weather, but influence it; and there might be people that legitimately think that our species needs to evolve above our current material existence. That won't happen when so many of our species struggle with surviving our current experience.

    Perhaps the former needs to happen for the latter to happen, but most assuredly the people that refuse to pick a side are only out to enrich themselves at the cost of their species.
    I chose my side decades ago. I grew up in a staunchly paternalistic authoritarian environment, but learned in the services that you never leave a buddy behind. And that if everyone doesn't have each other's back, the system breaks down.

    And when the system breaks down, everything break down, and people die.

    Sure, I met the 'individuals' again during my studies, the special snowflakes as they are now called, but all I found was that they were always the weakest link in the chain when the shit went down for real. Always the narrowest of shoulders. Always the biggest mouths afterwards. With nothing to show for it when it came to it.

    The machine needs all the parts, all working together. Even the ones that at first don't seem to fit. Diversity is strength. Class, or status, is not about entitlement; it is about responsibility, duty, and leadership; all of which has to be earned. All the parts are needed, otherwise the system breaks down.

    And when the system breaks down ...
    Quote Originally Posted by Miep View Post
    ...i have no idea whats realy going on...

  17. #56297
    Super Chillerator Global Moderator teds :D's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 9, 2011
    Posts
    8,263
    Quote Originally Posted by Don Rumata View Post
    WTF happened? Did SsgtSniper escaped from the mental care facility?

    I remember him posting the same retarded shit a while ago, then he disappeared.
    THE FUCKING IRONY

  18. #56298
    Bartholomeus Crane's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    7,955
    Quote Originally Posted by Spaztick View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    1. Right Libertarianism cannot achieve any of the stated aims of emancipation of the individual from state authority while it embraces private ownership of capital and an obsession with capital markets and employer/employee labour relationships. It is just replacing the central authority boogieman with a thousand little tyrants who own workplaces and who are all beholden to those who ultimate control access to capital (exacerbating the current environment).
    I would argue that this is good, not in a moral or idealistic sense but in the sense that you will always have the nobility and the peasantry, the bourgeoisie and the bourgeois, the elite and the masses, etc etc. and the 1000 small tyrants are the lesser evil than the 1 massive one. James Madison in the Federalist papers wrote that a large republic is necessary to combat the political factions that form so they are fighting each other for power instead of the people, which is (usually) what happens in a well-established industry or where there's competition for skilled labor. The unskilled migrant worker that picks fruit for a living or the wage-slave at McDonald's has very little power, but he has no leverage to begin with because of the enormous unskilled labor pool to pull from. In the inverse it's hard to argue you're oppressed if you are an engineer whose employment rage is negative and can negotiate excellent salary and benefits from your employer, or you're an attorney with lots of political connections and partnership in your law firm.

    Obviously we don't or can't have a perfect large republic where every common man is shielded from the employer he works for by other employers competing for his labor, but we've steadily been marching in circles for millennia over the issue, and in this age of liberties there is nothing stopping someone from opening their own business or establishing a co-op or collective.
    This is incredibly naive.

    Why is it a good thing that the unskilled fruitpicker or wage-slave at McDonalds has less power to begin with than the billionaire able to kill off your 'own business, or co-op or collective' at a whim?

    Why is it, if you follow Madison's thinking, bad for the lowly unskilled labourer to form unions to force the employer to pay a living wage through collective bargaining?

    Why, in fact, is it a bad thing for the government 'of the people, for the people, by the people' to protect millions of its citizens from the predatory practices of those one thousands small tyrants?

    How does this, in fact, differ from the 'pull yourself up by your bootstrap' argument?

    Which is impossible. You know that it is impossible right?
    Quote Originally Posted by Miep View Post
    ...i have no idea whats realy going on...

  19. #56299
    Donor Spaztick's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    No Longer up High Sierra's Ass
    Posts
    9,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Spaztick View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    1. Right Libertarianism cannot achieve any of the stated aims of emancipation of the individual from state authority while it embraces private ownership of capital and an obsession with capital markets and employer/employee labour relationships. It is just replacing the central authority boogieman with a thousand little tyrants who own workplaces and who are all beholden to those who ultimate control access to capital (exacerbating the current environment).
    I would argue that this is good, not in a moral or idealistic sense but in the sense that you will always have the nobility and the peasantry, the bourgeoisie and the bourgeois, the elite and the masses, etc etc. and the 1000 small tyrants are the lesser evil than the 1 massive one. James Madison in the Federalist papers wrote that a large republic is necessary to combat the political factions that form so they are fighting each other for power instead of the people, which is (usually) what happens in a well-established industry or where there's competition for skilled labor. The unskilled migrant worker that picks fruit for a living or the wage-slave at McDonald's has very little power, but he has no leverage to begin with because of the enormous unskilled labor pool to pull from. In the inverse it's hard to argue you're oppressed if you are an engineer whose employment rage is negative and can negotiate excellent salary and benefits from your employer, or you're an attorney with lots of political connections and partnership in your law firm.

    Obviously we don't or can't have a perfect large republic where every common man is shielded from the employer he works for by other employers competing for his labor, but we've steadily been marching in circles for millennia over the issue, and in this age of liberties there is nothing stopping someone from opening their own business or establishing a co-op or collective.
    This is incredibly naive.

    Why is it a good thing that the unskilled fruitpicker or wage-slave at McDonalds has less power to begin with than the billionaire able to kill off your 'own business, or co-op or collective' at a whim?

    Why is it, if you follow Madison's thinking, bad for the lowly unskilled labourer to form unions to force the employer to pay a living wage through collective bargaining?

    Why, in fact, is it a bad thing for the government 'of the people, for the people, by the people' to protect millions of its citizens from the predatory practices of those one thousands small tyrants?

    How does this, in fact, differ from the 'pull yourself up by your bootstrap' argument?

    Which is impossible. You know that it is impossible right?
    I don't argue for any of these things, only that factions are inevitable and letting one gain absolute power is worse than smaller factions fighting for power with each other. Often if smaller factions can't rule over others it's the commoner that prospers, as I'll give examples of below.

    Why is it a good thing that the unskilled fruitpicker or wage-slave at McDonalds has less power to begin with than the billionaire able to kill off your 'own business, or co-op or collective' at a whim?
    I think it could happen that a billionaire could kill off your business at a whim, but this is the realm of fantasy land. Billionaires don't usually go around being Disney villains just for the kicks of being a baby-killing bastard.

    Why is it, if you follow Madison's thinking, bad for the lowly unskilled labourer to form unions to force the employer to pay a living wage through collective bargaining?
    This is not what I said or intended: Madison did not like factions, but he used very hyperbolic argument in the Federalist Papers to show that they are inevitable products of human nature (you can either destroy Liberty or make everyone a homogenous group of link-minded thinkers, which would paradoxically make everyone part of one giant faction). Labor unions are natural political manifestations like any other group of people with common interest, and in the same way an employer can create a hierarchy of people working under him to enforce business structure, a union can form with representatives for more leverage, and the result is better wages and benefits or working conditions for the common laborer.

    Why, in fact, is it a bad thing for the government 'of the people, for the people, by the people' to protect millions of its citizens from the predatory practices of those one thousands small tyrants?
    The government itself, if it isn't the same construct of smaller factions fighting for power, will be the tyrant over the 1000 smaller ones without any guaranteed protection of the laborer under the 1000, as there is no guarantee that the tyrant of a tyrant is your ally.

  20. #56300
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    13,648
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Djan Seriy Anaplian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Whether the government should be involved for every policy is a perfectly valid question to ask, I think. And we can discuss 'the state should be as big as it needs to be, and no bigger', and what that means in practice. I'm sure we'll have a difference of opinion on that, but it's a worthwhile discussion to have.

    The problem I have with the Libertarians is that their answer to that question is invariably: 'no'. And personally, that answer is particularly evil when you consider that is their answer to questions about healthcare, social welfare, housing, etc. as well. Because there are people in our societies who are ill, vulnerable, and simply need someone to take care of them. Many through no fault of their own. For example because of age or ill health.

    And to just let them die in some alley or street; which would be, for many, the result of answering 'no' to those questions, is, to me at least, an abhorrent abnegation of the social responsibility everyone in society has towards their fellow man (or woman). It is, in that way, simply an unacceptable answer in this day and age, and in civil society. And as such, is, in fact, evil, pure and simple.

    Now we can expect such an answer from the puerile, even the infantile, when the world is still your oyster (i.e., living off your parents), but at one point one should really grow up and acquire the mental facilities to look through the massive amount of internal inconsistencies that are part and parcel of what goes for Libertarianism, and put it back in the box with your model planes and dinky toys.

    And if you refuse or can't do that, and still keep spouting the most anti-social and evil nonsense; well then that is you dehumanising yourself, not the other way round.
    If you see a person in your society who is ill, vulnerable, or simply needs someone to take care of them and your government system has failed to help them, do you personally do everything you can to help them?

    If you do not, is that an internal inconsistency in your belief system?

    If you do not, are you evil, anti-social or have you dehumanized yourself, despite your political support for better Government aid systems, systems (it is valid to note) you will not personally be expected to pay a material amount more to help fund?

    Is support for the system doing more the most meaningful qualifier as to humanity and evil?

    What of someone who does not support your political policy belief system, but personally donates tens of millions to help people in need?

    Are they still "evil", while you (who pay only a few thousand in general use taxes, say) are not evil because you think everyone should pay for helping the needy?

    Is it really as simple as "believe in the universal welfare state and you are good, do not and you are evil"?

    Even if I agree with you that society via Government should do more, these questions should still be answered. It is an easy moral out to say "I support more social aid!" and yet do nothing personally to help individuals, or to foster the change you claim you want and would potentially pay very little towards should it ever come about.
    ho ho m8, false equivalences up in here!
    I was just about to post that!

    The fact remains, I pay into the system, and I help out where I can, particularly within my social circle and family. I feel I have nothing to be ashamed about when it comes to that. But I will be damned if I boast about it on an internet spaceships serious business forum!

    The point was, though, that Libertarianism, especially, goes out of its way to condemn paying into the system, and helping out where you can. Their answer, specifically to state sanctioned aid, of any kind, is always: no. It's not just 'I've got mine, jack', which is bad enough as it is, it is: 'let them die'. And that, and I don't use the term lightly, is an evil attitude. There's just no other word that can describe that. Whatever false equivalences you'd like to draw to challenge that statement.

    In my worldview people have a duty not only towards themselves and their kin, but towards everyone else as well. No person is an island, and everyone has a social responsibility as well as a personal responsibility to live up to. And that means, preventing, or striving to prevent, other people's suffering. I'm certainly no fan of the nanny state, or even big government. But I can't think of a better way to redistribute wealth, including my own, fairly and efficiently than through a properly operating and operated government. And because I think that is the case, I actively strive, through democratic means, to bring such a government around. Because such a government, in the end, is the adequate means to do good to all.

    I knowing full well that Utopia will never be reached, but is damned well worth fighting for to get there!
    Generally speaking, I don't disagree with anything you've said. I generally support the same things you do in this case.

    With that said, I do think there is an internal inconsistency in describing those who do not politically support more broad welfare as evil, even if those same people may in their day to day lives provide regular aid to those in need via their personal actions.

    I do not believe it is enough to simply support change to the system to be "good" when it comes to those in need. And I do not think those who support alternate ways of helping those in need, especially those who take personal action to do so, are "evil" for not supporting the Government doing the job to a larger degree.

    I think the very act of using these descriptors is the wrong way to go about public debate on this.


Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •