Uh-oh spaghetti-o's! Political polling is back, asking for how you would place yourself on the Authoritarian/Libertarian political axis, as recommended in this thread to compliment its Left/Right axis poll. It's for... like... research and stuff.
31 days for the poll to run.
NB: I'm fully aware that I probably got the poll wrong, please criticise.
Verviedi wrote: Replace "Nazism" with "Totalitarianism". Nazism is specifically a far right authoritarian ideology. Make room for the auth-left people, please.
As usual I must vote "centrist" because there is no option "that depends on a subject"...
To give just one example on how not every area of life/politics can be left liberal and free and should be governed in strictly authoritarian fashion: antimicrobial resistance due to overuse/misuse of antibiotics in food industry and medicine... It is not a subject that can be maintained by attitudes like "self regulating free market will take care of everything" or "everyone should have free and uncontrolled access to whatever drug they wish" (NOT "whatever drug is required for their health")...
Yeah... There are good reasons for govt intervention, even if you hold liberal values. Wanna know why we can't have nice things? Reality. Reality is why we can't have nice things.
Do what you will, unless it harms others. The vaccination argument is where harming others comes into play. Do whatever drugs you want, but if you're neglecting your children because you're always high, you are harming others. That's when social services comes in.
I do agree that pure libertarianism doesn't work as of right now, mostly because things like religion, conspiracy, and malicious corporate influence still exist, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have as much liberty as we can get.
Debauchery is perfectly acceptable, as long as consent is involved and nobody else is being harmed.
You can't really go from "libertarian" to "anarchist" because anarchism generally has a very collective view of things while libertarianism loathes the very idea of society.
Also, there is no actual difference between "authoritarian" and "totalitarian". The latter was simply invented to defend Western support of dictatorships. See, those other guys are totalitarian while our guys are merely authoritarian.
My impression of Libertarians tends to be 'everyone should be free to be just like me' - but that's only based on the few I've met.
Centrist is probably the closest. I'm a Feminist and LGBTQ+ ally. I want to see everyone left alone to just get on with their own lives - but have no problem at all with laws being brought in to ensure that.
But, I strongly object to any kind of religion based laws. Your Good Book is your book. Keep it to yourself, and don't try to inflict it on anyone else.
I fear that the hard-right's much vaunted 'slippery slope' logic mostly applies to religious fundamentalism in law. Give them an inch, and they want more - and there's a lot of exceptionally dangerous things in all religious texts. You're absolutely free to believe what you want of course - you can be as fundamental as you see fit. Just don't pretend you're somehow the soul source of morality.
My impression of Libertarians tends to be 'everyone should be free to be just like me' - but that's only based on the few I've met.
[...]
I fear that the hard-right's much vaunted 'slippery slope' logic mostly applies to religious fundamentalism in law. Give them an inch, and they want more - and there's a lot of exceptionally dangerous things in all religious texts. You're absolutely free to believe what you want of course - you can be as fundamental as you see fit. Just don't pretend you're somehow the soul source of morality.
Funnily enough, both those two sentences describe ideally two different individuals I personally know - one is catholic monarchist and one is sworn libertarian, i.e. both think their way of thinking is the only ethical way of thinking and will shove it down your throat. Just not in a physically agressive ways.
@CptJake: European and US term "libertarian" probably have different meanings. In Poland, "libertarian" is a usually a far-right person whose ideal "country" is "anarcho-capitalistic freedom of two-sided, consent agreements in any area of life", and definately not "universal basic income" left style person. One defining paradoxes of libertarianism and a topic of many discussions is a question "does a consent person have a freedom to sell oneself into slavery?".
I voted centrist. There's good reasons for a lot of government regulations, and the government being an extension of us should take care of the most vulnerable. Leave a minimum value for everyone.
However, the government should allow people to do what they want when it doesn't affect someone else. You can have whatever beliefs you want as long as you don't force others to follow those beliefs.
You want to smoke pot. That's fine. Just don't do it around people that don't want it who you are giving a contact high to and being forced to breath the smoke. Also don't do it while driving or at work. Also don't do it around children(even your own) who cannot give informed consent.
Conversely, don't fire people for smoking pot unless they are under the influence at work.
I'm an authoritarian learning centerist, if I'm complete honestly. Maybe even somewhat more authoritarian than that.
If I can use an analogy, right now in my opinion uk law is a fat useless mess than lies on top of you and prevents you from living to your fullest whilst at the same time being too fat and pathetic to stop the serious issues like crime and terrorism. It prohibits soft drugs, making criminals out of ordinary people who mean no harm, yet gives slaps on the wrist to violent serial offenders and is hopeless at dealing with terrorists. I think the law should be like one of those 'trap door' predators. Generally out of sight and out of mind, but cross it's path and you won't know what hit you.
I think my personal problem with going down authoritarian routes is that the government answers to no higher power, (who watches the watchmen?), and the more power they have the easier and more likely abuse of power becomes.
That said, I'm often the one in the room arguing that it makes no sense to oppose current anti-terror laws because prevention is the only possible solution to groups that do not fear punishment.
Depends on the nature and scope of the anti-terror law.
If it's say, the security services have the absolute right to access the mobile phone or computer of an arrested suspect - not so bad.
But, if it's the security services have the absolute right to access the mobile phone or computer of anyone in the country - far, far too open to abuse.
Verviedi wrote: Do what you will, unless it harms others. The vaccination argument is where harming others comes into play. Do whatever drugs you want, but if you're neglecting your children because you're always high, you are harming others. That's when social services comes in.
I do agree that pure libertarianism doesn't work as of right now, mostly because things like religion, conspiracy, and malicious corporate influence still exist, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have as much liberty as we can get.
Debauchery is perfectly acceptable, as long as consent is involved and nobody else is being harmed.
I wasn't talking about sexual debauchery but as I look for that word in english in google probably I have used a word that I don't really understand, sorry about that
I was trying to transmit that one has freedom until the freedom of others began, so pure freedom is just chaos.
If it's say, the security services have the absolute right to access the mobile phone or computer of an arrested suspect - not so bad.
But, if it's the security services have the absolute right to access the mobile phone or computer of anyone in the country - far, far too open to abuse.
Can't they technically search anyone's mobile phone/computer if they have a probable cause?
I'm relatively libertarian. The rights to free speech, press, assembly, and those of privacy are very important, equal protection under the law, and all adult citizens must be guaranteed the right to vote. Specific and very well founded reason must be given to bypass these rights.
Other things I am supportive of however, anti-discrimination laws, safety laws (explosives and toxic regulations, helmet laws, ect). As well as not agreeing that corporations should be given these same rights.
Rosebuddy wrote: You can't really go from "libertarian" to "anarchist" because anarchism generally has a very collective view of things while libertarianism loathes the very idea of society.
There are multiple meanings for libertarian. Civil libertarians are people who focus on protection of individual rights without any of the oddball baggage you get from the US rightwing libertarian movement.
Also, there is no actual difference between "authoritarian" and "totalitarian". The latter was simply invented to defend Western support of dictatorships. See, those other guys are totalitarian while our guys are merely authoritarian.
Hogwash. Authoritarianism and totalitarianism are quite distinct. Authoritarianism, and the hint really is in the name, focuses on total political authority. They will limit or ban political opposition, and they will restrict individuals and institutions to the extent those groups might challenge their political authority. That's awful, of course, but that is it's limit. Totalitarianism is something else, and again the hint is in the name - total. Totalitarian governments look to dominate the total lives of their citizens, their art, culture, friends and relationships, all of it is done only with party approval, or possibly only with party instruction. Putin's Russia is authoritarian, Stalin's Russia was totalitarian.
I voted anarchist. I identify as both a libertarian and an anarchist. I think that I am both, other people might consider me neither.
People use the same words to mean very different things. This has always been the case. There's a reason why dictionaries frequently have multiple definitions of pretty mundane, uncontroversial words. When it comes to political ideologies many people are convinced they know the correct definitions of all terms, and that any use of the same words and phrases in other ways is incorrect. I'm definitely not claiming to be an expert or anything, but being a political science major I've spent a lot of time reading about political ideologies and I'm always finding new and interesting ways in which different groups use words in different ways. The same thing happened in the past, and definitions usually change over time as well.
I think discussing terminology can be very useful in trying to make sure people understand each other, but it can also be a big waste of time when people get bent out of shape over the "correct" use of words. Jargon quickly develops whenever a group of people regularly discuss a subject. It seems pretty normal for those groups to trace the history of their terms in an effort to prove that they are using the words the correct way and that the other people are unintentionally (or sometimes intentionally) using the words incorrectly. I think it's mostly a waste of time.
I find myself having more in common with leftist anarchists than moderate, minarchist libertarians. Once the state is removed from the picture the differences between free market people and communist people seem pretty small unless, in my opinion, they are quibbling over the nuances of certain words rather than looking at the intent behind what is being said.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rosebuddy wrote: You can't really go from "libertarian" to "anarchist" because anarchism generally has a very collective view of things while libertarianism loathes the very idea of society.
I don't think I know any libertarians that loathe society, they just don't consider the state and society to be the same thing. Most of them would define things along the lines of society being an abstraction of all the interactions and relationships between individuals, while a state is an organization that enforces a monopoly on the use of violence inside of a certain geographic boundary. Of course there are differing definitions of both of those words, but that's how a lot of libertarians think of them.
Hogwash. Authoritarianism and totalitarianism are quite distinct. Authoritarianism, and the hint really is in the name, focuses on total political authority. They will limit or ban political opposition, and they will restrict individuals and institutions to the extent those groups might challenge their political authority. That's awful, of course, but that is it's limit. Totalitarianism is something else, and again the hint is in the name - total. Totalitarian governments look to dominate the total lives of their citizens, their art, culture, friends and relationships, all of it is done only with party approval, or possibly only with party instruction. Putin's Russia is authoritarian, Stalin's Russia was totalitarian.
As I said, our guys are authoritarian which is tough but not so bad as those other guys who are uh, totalitarian!
It's not a real distinction. It's useless wordgames to justify the support of dictatorships.
Hogwash. Authoritarianism and totalitarianism are quite distinct. Authoritarianism, and the hint really is in the name, focuses on total political authority. They will limit or ban political opposition, and they will restrict individuals and institutions to the extent those groups might challenge their political authority. That's awful, of course, but that is it's limit. Totalitarianism is something else, and again the hint is in the name - total. Totalitarian governments look to dominate the total lives of their citizens, their art, culture, friends and relationships, all of it is done only with party approval, or possibly only with party instruction. Putin's Russia is authoritarian, Stalin's Russia was totalitarian.
As I said, our guys are authoritarian which is tough but not so bad as those other guys who are uh, totalitarian!
It's not a real distinction. It's useless wordgames to justify the support of dictatorships.
Errr...sebster just made a pretty clear distinction, far as I can see. No word games about it. One means one thing, the other means something else. A banana isn't an apple by a different name, even though they're both fruit.
Rosebuddy wrote: As I said, our guys are authoritarian which is tough but not so bad as those other guys who are uh, totalitarian!
It's not a real distinction. It's useless wordgames to justify the support of dictatorships.
No, seriously, there is a difference. Authoritarian governments seek absolute political control, but limit themselves to purely the political. Totalitarian governments seek absolute control of every part of their citizen's lives. It is the difference between Stalin's Russia and Putin's Russia.
And no, it isn't about wordgames to support some dictatorships. That doesn't make any kind of sense. That is like saying the distinction between manslaughter and murder is just word games to support some kinds of murder. Both authoritarianism and totalitarianism are recognised as bad, but we seperate the two in order to more accurately describe them and deal with each.
I'm so confused here. In the US, Libertarians are right leaning, yet totalitarianism is always portrayed as far right politics. Am I missing something?
As far as where I lean: I believe that there should be laws, but they shouldn't oppress. I believe that enterprise should not be hampered unless it operates to the extreme detriment of health and safety. I also don't believe I should ever pay someone else's grocery bill unless they are a public servant/emergency/law enforcement/military. Oh, you got a degree in basketweaving and need me to foot your food bill? Nah, learn to hunt, trap or forage.
Just Tony wrote: I'm so confused here. In the US, Libertarians are right leaning, yet totalitarianism is always portrayed as far right politics. Am I missing something?
Print media, probably. US televised political coverage is... poor at best.
It's pretty poor here in the UK, too...
There is a tendency for people to think that all Totalitarianism is right-wing because we get fed a lot of information about foreign dictatorships (which tend to be right-wing) and the old Nazi regime. And we hear almost nothing about Stalin's Russia.
Which is part of why militant leftism is getting traction in the English speaking world..
Just Tony wrote: I'm so confused here. In the US, Libertarians are right leaning, yet totalitarianism is always portrayed as far right politics. Am I missing something?
The left/right political spectrum is merely a best-fit line through an n-dimensional hypervolume.
Just Tony wrote: I'm so confused here. In the US, Libertarians are right leaning, yet totalitarianism is always portrayed as far right politics. Am I missing something?
Print media, probably. US televised political coverage is... poor at best.
It's pretty poor here in the UK, too...
There is a tendency for people to think that all Totalitarianism is right-wing because we get fed a lot of information about foreign dictatorships (which tend to be right-wing) and the old Nazi regime. And we hear almost nothing about Stalin's Russia.
Which is part of why militant leftism is getting traction in the English speaking world..
Stalin's Russia was not covered particularly much because it then raises thorny questions of why western social democracies were working with such a state and allowing such atrocities. Russia got noticeably more coverage in the US during the cold war, such that communism became a dirty word and the US pulled pretty hard to the right, supporting despots and corrupt regimes throughout the globe to "stop communism". Meanwhile, the civil rights movement showed that more progressive social structures were viable in the US. The Viet Nam conflict soured public opinion on militant colonialism to a large degree, and the Nixon situation shook public confidence in Washington. Eventually, a hawkish coalition of conservatives, corporatists, and religious factions would push back into power in the 80s with Reagan and again in the 90s starting with Congress, and culminating in the victory of GW Bush. Once again, an unpopular war and a flagging economy would erode public support. Current US politics is a deeply divided, regionally sensitive topic that has loads of history behind it. "Militant leftism" sounds like rhetorical nonsense aimed at the persecution complex of right wingers. Especially given that leftists in western nations tend to be the ones opposing military actions, authoritarianism, and police states, opting instead to support greater inclusiveness and political equity. While there certainly are extremists, and violent ones, that hardly seems to typify western leftists (which is itself such a broad collection of groups as to be meaningless) to any degree.
Just Tony wrote: I'm so confused here. In the US, Libertarians are right leaning, yet totalitarianism is always portrayed as far right politics.
This has to do with the peculiarities of American politics. The American Right is made up of many strands of political ideology. The so-called "establishment Republican" tends to emphasize traditional social values, law and order, and patriotism. There is a good amount of overlap between them and centrist Democrats. They are often criticized as being nationalist and authoritarian. By contrast, "Goldwater republicans" tend to emphasize limited government (especially reducing federal government), individual liberty, and free markets. Now, it's not to say that you have to be one or the other. The Tea Party movement, for example, is potent mix of both - a strong appeal to personal liberty based on patriotism ... but note also opposition to gay marriage.
On the other side of the aisle, among Democrats, there is even more variety. The Democratic Party is a big tent but IME Democrats seem to be less skeptical than Republicans of government as such. Traditionally, the Democrats have been the "governing party" and the Republics have been the "opposition party" throughout American history. Overall, I think Democrats are more likely to hold authoritarian viewpoints than Republicans.
jmurph wrote: "Militant leftism" sounds like rhetorical nonsense
And it would be, if we didn't have 3rd Wave Feminism setting fire to universities, campaigning to get science teachers fired for claiming that there are only two biological genders, and Canada's Bill C-16, which would place into law compelled speech.
Just Tony wrote: I'm so confused here. In the US, Libertarians are right leaning, yet totalitarianism is always portrayed as far right politics. Am I missing something?
Print media, probably. US televised political coverage is... poor at best.
It's pretty poor here in the UK, too...
There is a tendency for people to think that all Totalitarianism is right-wing because we get fed a lot of information about foreign dictatorships (which tend to be right-wing) and the old Nazi regime. And we hear almost nothing about Stalin's Russia.
Which is part of why militant leftism is getting traction in the English speaking world..
Stalin's Russia was not covered particularly much because it then raises thorny questions of why western social democracies were working with such a state and allowing such atrocities. Russia got noticeably more coverage in the US during the cold war, such that communism became a dirty word and the US pulled pretty hard to the right, supporting despots and corrupt regimes throughout the globe to "stop communism". Meanwhile, the civil rights movement showed that more progressive social structures were viable in the US. The Viet Nam conflict soured public opinion on militant colonialism to a large degree, and the Nixon situation shook public confidence in Washington. Eventually, a hawkish coalition of conservatives, corporatists, and religious factions would push back into power in the 80s with Reagan and again in the 90s starting with Congress, and culminating in the victory of GW Bush. Once again, an unpopular war and a flagging economy would erode public support. Current US politics is a deeply divided, regionally sensitive topic that has loads of history behind it. "Militant leftism" sounds like rhetorical nonsense aimed at the persecution complex of right wingers. Especially given that leftists in western nations tend to be the ones opposing military actions, authoritarianism, and police states, opting instead to support greater inclusiveness and political equity. While there certainly are extremists, and violent ones, that hardly seems to typify western leftists (which is itself such a broad collection of groups as to be meaningless) to any degree.
The progressive/leftist pushback against the conservative politics of the US post WWII caused a time of unprecedented domestic terrorism and violence.
But in the United States, terrorism has declined dramatically since the 1970s. In that decade, 1,470 incidents of terrorism unfolded within the nation's borders and 184 people were killed. A total of 214 acts of terrorism were cataloged between 2002 to 2013 on U.S. soil, killing 61.
When William Webster became director of the FBI in 1978, more than a hundred terrorist attacks a year were taking place in the United States. By the mid-1970s, terrorist bombs were being set off in the country at an average rate of 50 to 60 a year.
It may be hard to recall now, but there was a time when most Americans were decidedly more blasé about bombing attacks. This was during the 1970s, when protest bombings in America were commonplace, especially in hard-hit cities like New York, Chicago and San Francisco. Nearly a dozen radical underground groups, dimly remembered outfits such as the Weather Underground, the New World Liberation Front and the Symbionese Liberation Army, set off hundreds of bombs during that tumultuous decade—so many, in fact, that many people all but accepted them as a part of daily life. As one woman sniffed to a New York Post reporter after an attack by a Puerto Rican independence group in 1977: "Oh, another bombing? Who is it this time?’"
The underground groups of the 1970s were a kind of grungy, bell-bottomed coda to the protests of the 1960s; their members were mostly onetime student leftists who refused to give up the utopian dreams of 1968. While little remembered today, there was a time during the early 1970s when the U.S. government—the Nixon Administration—considered these groups a genuine threat to national security. Alarmed by a series of Weatherman attacks, Nixon told J. Edgar Hoover during a June 1970 Oval Office meeting that "revolutionary terror" represented the single greatest threat to American society. Hoover promised to do what he could, which wasn’t much.
Why do we recall so little of this? It’s a good question. Conservatives say it’s because the liberal media wanted to let the radicals off easy. It’s also possible that, as a people, we only remember the events we want to. Yet another possibility is that the violence of the 1970s was forgotten in large part because none of the participants—both the leftists facing prison, and the authorities who chased them in vain all those years—had much incentive to make us remember. With no one telling the story, the story melted away.
Just Tony wrote: So I wind up being a Goldwater Republican. Good to know. So I have no clue how to vote on the damn poll.
Somewhere around Libertarian-leaning Centrist to Very Libertarian. I personally went with Libertarian-leaning Centrist, as I am not a hardline "government is always the problem, never the answer" type but I am pretty skeptical of the government's capacity to actually make things better - at best, I think the government can prevent things from becoming worse.
People just need to have realistic pragmatic expectations for what the government can do and not try to force it to do things it can't. Look at how people view governing bodies in sports. The NFL is responsible for creating and maintaining the league entity, it keeps football games from turning into Calvinball and creates a system that provides each team the opportunity to strive for success in a manner of their own choosing. The NFL can't determine how players play, coaches coach or teams manage themselves or if fans have a good time at the stadiums and nobody expects them to do so. The NFL can't fix the Browns ineptitude or stop the Patriots from having success because the NFL cares about the League in the aggregate, it doesn't try to control the performance of teams and individual players because such a level of control isn't possible and trying to achieve it would be counter to the purpose of having a governing body for the league in the first place. The NFL's purpose is to create and preserve a level playing field for the league that creates opportunities for teams and players to do well without guaranteeing any outcomes. That should be the goal of all governing bodies, preserving opportunity without attempting to control outcomes.
The progressive/leftist pushback against the conservative politics of the US post WWII caused a time of unprecedented domestic terrorism and violence.
But in the United States, terrorism has declined dramatically since the 1970s. In that decade, 1,470 incidents of terrorism unfolded within the nation's borders and 184 people were killed. A total of 214 acts of terrorism were cataloged between 2002 to 2013 on U.S. soil, killing 61.
When William Webster became director of the FBI in 1978, more than a hundred terrorist attacks a year were taking place in the United States. By the mid-1970s, terrorist bombs were being set off in the country at an average rate of 50 to 60 a year.
It may be hard to recall now, but there was a time when most Americans were decidedly more blasé about bombing attacks. This was during the 1970s, when protest bombings in America were commonplace, especially in hard-hit cities like New York, Chicago and San Francisco. Nearly a dozen radical underground groups, dimly remembered outfits such as the Weather Underground, the New World Liberation Front and the Symbionese Liberation Army, set off hundreds of bombs during that tumultuous decade—so many, in fact, that many people all but accepted them as a part of daily life. As one woman sniffed to a New York Post reporter after an attack by a Puerto Rican independence group in 1977: "Oh, another bombing? Who is it this time?’"
The underground groups of the 1970s were a kind of grungy, bell-bottomed coda to the protests of the 1960s; their members were mostly onetime student leftists who refused to give up the utopian dreams of 1968. While little remembered today, there was a time during the early 1970s when the U.S. government—the Nixon Administration—considered these groups a genuine threat to national security. Alarmed by a series of Weatherman attacks, Nixon told J. Edgar Hoover during a June 1970 Oval Office meeting that "revolutionary terror" represented the single greatest threat to American society. Hoover promised to do what he could, which wasn’t much.
Why do we recall so little of this? It’s a good question. Conservatives say it’s because the liberal media wanted to let the radicals off easy. It’s also possible that, as a people, we only remember the events we want to. Yet another possibility is that the violence of the 1970s was forgotten in large part because none of the participants—both the leftists facing prison, and the authorities who chased them in vain all those years—had much incentive to make us remember. With no one telling the story, the story melted away.
Caused?
It may help to look at the crime rates at the time. According to FBI statistics, violent crimes rose steadily from 1960 through 1980 (violent crime rate increased by 126 percent between 1960 and 1970, and by 64 percent between 1970 and 1980). They took a slight downturn in 1980 before picking back up. 1994 finally saw the breaking point. So was it political or just overall violence linked to American population growth? Lead in the gasoline? The funny thing is nobody is sure why the crime rate finally fell. And the previous poster talked about a growing militant left, not the 70s holdovers. But the best he can produce is some silly Canadian politics (quotas and such). A far cry from the militant Maoist revolutionaries of China, for example, and really just grousing about not liking the results of democratic exchange (they can always be voted out). Real political violence is ugly, but is also common in periods of instability. The current warfare in Syria or demonstrations in Venezuela are good examples. In the US, violence is much more common with the fringes of the political right than the left, particularly with racial identity groups, though leftists are more commonly seen in protest mode. But the violent elements, like most extremists, represent a small fringe element, not a mainstream view. If anything, America is much farther removed from embracing political violence than it has been historically.
I suggest that if anyone thinks that quotas on gender in government is the worst thing going politically, they might want to take a look a the number of environmental activists that have been killed.
Prestor Jon wrote: The NFL can't determine how players play, coaches coach or teams manage themselves.
Other than the fact that it does. Post TD celebration and sportsmanship issues are definitely affected my NFL regulations.
Post TD celebrations and unsportsmanlike conduct are deadball fouls, they are called after plays are over, they don't influence how the play unfolds. Penalties are meant to deter illegal play just like laws are meant to deter illegal actions but neither actually controls performance they only punish behavior after the fact. Celebration penalties don't impact the ability of offensive players to score touchdowns just like criminal prosecutions don't prevent people from committing a crime in the first place. Governing bodies can enforce rules that protect the integrity of the whole but they can't control people. A certain amount of celebration after a TD is allowed but too much warrants a penalty, drinking alcohol is legal but it's illegal to be drunk and disorderly or drive drunk. The rules/laws don't physically bar people from choosing to break them but they allow the governing body to impose punishment on people who choose to do so.
NFL also controls regulations (such as the width of the goalposts) to change the effectiveness of certain styles of play.
If anything gives the sport a 'bad reputation' the NFL are all over it and changing regulations to affect how teams manage themselves and coaches coach, etc...
Selym wrote: campaigning to get science teachers fired for claiming that there are only two biological genders
XXY, XYY, and many other interesting variations would seem to be a bit of a thorn in the argument that there is, no?
No, that's two men with a genetic abnormality. One still has a V and the other a P. And both are fully compatible in the standard gender dichotomy. XYY has long been debunked as any sort of "Ultraman". It used to be used as an argument for why so many men end up in prison compared to women, but the study on it was discredited.
As for gender-identity, that is different from biological gender, but over 99.9% of XX will identify as female, and over 99.9% of XY will identify as male.
EDIT: Misremembered XXY as being female. It's actually male with an additional X chromosome.
So you're arbitrarily deciding what counts as a gender and what isn't, but is rather an "abnormality". There might as well just be one gender then, with women being a genetic abnormality of men since men slightly outnumber women.
Just Tony wrote: I'm so confused here. In the US, Libertarians are right leaning, yet totalitarianism is always portrayed as far right politics. Am I missing something?
It's because of how politics in the US works. The left favors a strong government in many ways, but they tend to be ways that don't remove personal freedom*. Yeah, people will grumble about paying taxes, but your freedom isn't taken away just because you paid a slightly higher tax rate to provide government services like health care or education or whatever. What you do with your life once you pay your taxes isn't the government's business. But when the right favors a powerful government, outside of spending vast amounts of money on the military, it's often in the form of government-imposed morality. See things like gay marriage as an example, instead of leaving it at "I'm not gay, but I don't care what you do with your private life" the right said "this is morally wrong, it is illegal to do it". It feels a lot more like government is leaving the reasonable scope of what government is supposed to do and moving into micromanaging the lives of the average person.
Also, libertarians aren't always right-leaning in the US. There are right-wing libertarians that emphasize right-wing economic policy, often at the same time that they advocate for Christian theocracy on social issues, but there are left-wing libertarians that care more about social issues like legalizing drugs and keeping the government out of your bedroom. The main difference between left-wing and right-wing libertarians is that the Libertarian Party tends to draw more support from the right, while left-leaning libertarians support either random fringe parties that can't even make the ballot or concede to practicality and vote for democrats.
*And no, "you can't teach ideologically motivated pseudoscientific garbage in science class", "you can't discriminate against people you hate", and "you can't sell dangerous products that get people hurt/killed" are not meaningful examples of taking away your freedom.
Oh, you got a degree in basketweaving and need me to foot your food bill? Nah, learn to hunt, trap or forage.
It's also something of a recurring joke in US politics that most libertarians are just Republicans who like to smoke pot.
The US Libertarian party is (supposedly) based on classical liberalism. They advocate non-interventionism, laissez-faire capitalism, civil liberties, and are anti- social welfare programs. The focus on dismantling government programs tends to put them more commonly with conservatives and social and civil issues get pushed aside. After all, even though Libertarians nominally support gender equality, etc. they do not believe in government as an instrument to do so. So that leaves the lower taxes/dismantle government angle, which readily merges with more standard Republican planks.
Keep in mind also that the Libertarian party was a split off group of anti-war Republicans in the 70s, so they have never been that far apart.
It also doesn't hurt that Libertarians are predominately white and male. Which leads to another problem (and why Libertarians tend to viewed as more right leaning).
Goldwater embraced a lot of libertarian principles in the 60s and also became an illustration of how "liberty" and racism/segregation intertwine when he split with the party and refused to support the 1964 Civil Rights Act, becoming an unintentional hero for segregationists. Chris Ladd wrote a good article about the issue in Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisladd/2016/09/17/the-libertarian-civil-rights-paradox/#761ae6ff4cae
Ladd (who tellingly begins by declaring that the GOP is descending "into a white nationalist death-spiral" - in September 2016 ...) is spinning revisionism, or maybe just peddling ignorance, regarding Jim Crow. Segregation was a legal regime and, if anything, the product of an authoritarian impulse, and cannot be meaningfully displayed on the "small government" shelf. It seems like Ladd is conflating racism with segregation because he is precommitted to the conclusion that both can be/are defeated by big (and ever bigger) government. This is because the transparent goal of his article is to undermine the Libertarian cause (during a presidential election) by associating it with racism.
skyth wrote: Well, Libertarianism sees nothing inherently wrong with racism...
Which definition of Lib?
From what I see, Liberal values are more inclined to apathy about one's origins. Of course, then you come across Social Justice movements that make race, gender and self-identity the primary characteristics by which you should judge someone... I hate that sort of thinking.
Libertarianism is just as pie in the sky as Communism. I have yet to see a version of Libertarian party platform that doesn't immediately result in hard plutocracy.
We're not talking about any particular party platform here; we're talking about a spectrum of political attitudes:
Authoritarianism <----------> Libertarianism
Racism is honestly not an important component of this discussion simply because you can add it to both ends of this spectrum or leave it out completely. There is nothing inherently racist about either authoritarianism or libertarianism, for the purposes of this discussion.
Racism is just a false flag in this thread, partly because it is used as a false flag in the Ladd article. But at least the Ladd article is talking about a specific political party whereas here ITT we are talking only about a generalized spectrum which we invented for the purpose of this specific discussion.
You could still derive meaningful arguments about Auth/Lib issues, by using it as an example to compare the mechanics behind the spectrum's philosophies - by looking at how each end is liable to implement race as a factor (or leave it out).
From what I understand about Authoritarian regimes, racism comes into play in the form of "my race is superior", whereas SJ movements look more like "my race is inferior/morally wrong".
Ah okay. It is confusing because there is a whole crop of political parties that explicitly identify as "Libertarian" where as authoritarianism doesn't get any such banner bearers.
I agree racism isn't inherent to either side, and tangential to the topic.
feeder wrote: Ah okay. It is confusing because there is a whole crop of political parties that explicitly identify as "Libertarian" where as authoritarianism doesn't get any such banner bearers.
I agree racism isn't inherent to either side, and tangential to the topic.
...... whereas SJ movements look more like "my race is inferior/morally wrong".
This is as a meaningful understanding of SJWs as using Westboro baptists to understand Christians in general, or Daesh to understand Muslims.
Depends of the definition of SJW, Christians or Muslims being used.
If I add one word to each of those terms, we get more specific (and they are in an odd form of agreement about several things): Social-Marxist SJW, Fundamentalist Christianity, Radical Islam.
Those particular groupings tend to have a dislike of inclusivity, don't feel that apathy towards one's personal life is a good thing, and seem to prefer authoritarian measures.
I would like to point out that the subject was why libertarians, specifically big "L" Libertarians in the US are associated with the right. Racism is a highly relevant factor in that association as the article illustrates. Whether you agree with the author or not is irrelevant. The point is that those associations exist in perceptions at the very least.
As to individuals, it's always much more complex. But, while racism may not be inherent to leftists or rightist politics, it definitely seems to be more common and accepted in the fringes of the right (unless one completely ignores racial identity groups and the common racial elements that appear in fascism). This also gets directly at one of the more obvious clashes- anarchism v. class systems. Of courses this tends to represent the extremes, not the middle as the whole point is to show contrast.
The progressive/leftist pushback against the conservative politics of the US post WWII caused a time of unprecedented domestic terrorism and violence.
But in the United States, terrorism has declined dramatically since the 1970s. In that decade, 1,470 incidents of terrorism unfolded within the nation's borders and 184 people were killed. A total of 214 acts of terrorism were cataloged between 2002 to 2013 on U.S. soil, killing 61.
When William Webster became director of the FBI in 1978, more than a hundred terrorist attacks a year were taking place in the United States. By the mid-1970s, terrorist bombs were being set off in the country at an average rate of 50 to 60 a year.
It may be hard to recall now, but there was a time when most Americans were decidedly more blasé about bombing attacks. This was during the 1970s, when protest bombings in America were commonplace, especially in hard-hit cities like New York, Chicago and San Francisco. Nearly a dozen radical underground groups, dimly remembered outfits such as the Weather Underground, the New World Liberation Front and the Symbionese Liberation Army, set off hundreds of bombs during that tumultuous decade—so many, in fact, that many people all but accepted them as a part of daily life. As one woman sniffed to a New York Post reporter after an attack by a Puerto Rican independence group in 1977: "Oh, another bombing? Who is it this time?’"
The underground groups of the 1970s were a kind of grungy, bell-bottomed coda to the protests of the 1960s; their members were mostly onetime student leftists who refused to give up the utopian dreams of 1968. While little remembered today, there was a time during the early 1970s when the U.S. government—the Nixon Administration—considered these groups a genuine threat to national security. Alarmed by a series of Weatherman attacks, Nixon told J. Edgar Hoover during a June 1970 Oval Office meeting that "revolutionary terror" represented the single greatest threat to American society. Hoover promised to do what he could, which wasn’t much.
Why do we recall so little of this? It’s a good question. Conservatives say it’s because the liberal media wanted to let the radicals off easy. It’s also possible that, as a people, we only remember the events we want to. Yet another possibility is that the violence of the 1970s was forgotten in large part because none of the participants—both the leftists facing prison, and the authorities who chased them in vain all those years—had much incentive to make us remember. With no one telling the story, the story melted away.
Caused?
It may help to look at the crime rates at the time. According to FBI statistics, violent crimes rose steadily from 1960 through 1980 (violent crime rate increased by 126 percent between 1960 and 1970, and by 64 percent between 1970 and 1980). They took a slight downturn in 1980 before picking back up. 1994 finally saw the breaking point. So was it political or just overall violence linked to American population growth? Lead in the gasoline? The funny thing is nobody is sure why the crime rate finally fell. And the previous poster talked about a growing militant left, not the 70s holdovers. But the best he can produce is some silly Canadian politics (quotas and such). A far cry from the militant Maoist revolutionaries of China, for example, and really just grousing about not liking the results of democratic exchange (they can always be voted out). Real political violence is ugly, but is also common in periods of instability. The current warfare in Syria or demonstrations in Venezuela are good examples. In the US, violence is much more common with the fringes of the political right than the left, particularly with racial identity groups, though leftists are more commonly seen in protest mode. But the violent elements, like most extremists, represent a small fringe element, not a mainstream view. If anything, America is much farther removed from embracing political violence than it has been historically.
I suggest that if anyone thinks that quotas on gender in government is the worst thing going politically, they might want to take a look a the number of environmental activists that have been killed.
Yes, caused by leftists. Go look up the information as to what groups were detonating thousands of bombs in the US during that time period and the reasoning espoused by those groups as to why the bombings were being done. Then go look for the time period during which thousands of bombs were set off by right wing fringe groups in the US. The far left has always been a proponent of rapid drastic revolutionary change and therefore championed violence as the most efficient means to achieve those goals. In contrast the conservative fringe isn't looking to violently change the system their objective is to preserve an existing power structure so they work through the apparatus of the state instead of against it.
"SJ movements" strike me as consistently leaning toward authoritarianism. The racist component of social justice is, reminiscent of Nazi ideology, the insistence on imagining every aspect of politics as fundamentally about race.
And again, saying "Party ABC is racist" is nothing more than a component of opposing Party XYZ's agenda. It has no actual relevance to the topic of why libertarianism is, in the United States, a strand of political conservatism.
jmurph wrote: I would like to point out that the subject was why libertarians, specifically big "L" Libertarians in the US are associated with the right. Racism is a highly relevant factor in that association as the article illustrates. Whether you agree with the author or not is irrelevant. The point is that those associations exist in perceptions at the very least.
As to individuals, it's always much more complex. But, while racism may not be inherent to leftists or rightist politics, it definitely seems to be more common and accepted in the fringes of the right (unless one completely ignores racial identity groups and the common racial elements that appear in fascism). This also gets directly at one of the more obvious clashes- anarchism v. class systems. Of courses this tends to represent the extremes, not the middle as the whole point is to show contrast.
And also the fact that hard libertarians (anachro-capitalists) will defend slavery.
The progressive/leftist pushback against the conservative politics of the US post WWII caused a time of unprecedented domestic terrorism and violence.
But in the United States, terrorism has declined dramatically since the 1970s. In that decade, 1,470 incidents of terrorism unfolded within the nation's borders and 184 people were killed. A total of 214 acts of terrorism were cataloged between 2002 to 2013 on U.S. soil, killing 61.
When William Webster became director of the FBI in 1978, more than a hundred terrorist attacks a year were taking place in the United States. By the mid-1970s, terrorist bombs were being set off in the country at an average rate of 50 to 60 a year.
It may be hard to recall now, but there was a time when most Americans were decidedly more blasé about bombing attacks. This was during the 1970s, when protest bombings in America were commonplace, especially in hard-hit cities like New York, Chicago and San Francisco. Nearly a dozen radical underground groups, dimly remembered outfits such as the Weather Underground, the New World Liberation Front and the Symbionese Liberation Army, set off hundreds of bombs during that tumultuous decade—so many, in fact, that many people all but accepted them as a part of daily life. As one woman sniffed to a New York Post reporter after an attack by a Puerto Rican independence group in 1977: "Oh, another bombing? Who is it this time?’"
The underground groups of the 1970s were a kind of grungy, bell-bottomed coda to the protests of the 1960s; their members were mostly onetime student leftists who refused to give up the utopian dreams of 1968. While little remembered today, there was a time during the early 1970s when the U.S. government—the Nixon Administration—considered these groups a genuine threat to national security. Alarmed by a series of Weatherman attacks, Nixon told J. Edgar Hoover during a June 1970 Oval Office meeting that "revolutionary terror" represented the single greatest threat to American society. Hoover promised to do what he could, which wasn’t much.
Why do we recall so little of this? It’s a good question. Conservatives say it’s because the liberal media wanted to let the radicals off easy. It’s also possible that, as a people, we only remember the events we want to. Yet another possibility is that the violence of the 1970s was forgotten in large part because none of the participants—both the leftists facing prison, and the authorities who chased them in vain all those years—had much incentive to make us remember. With no one telling the story, the story melted away.
Caused?
It may help to look at the crime rates at the time. According to FBI statistics, violent crimes rose steadily from 1960 through 1980 (violent crime rate increased by 126 percent between 1960 and 1970, and by 64 percent between 1970 and 1980). They took a slight downturn in 1980 before picking back up. 1994 finally saw the breaking point. So was it political or just overall violence linked to American population growth? Lead in the gasoline? The funny thing is nobody is sure why the crime rate finally fell. And the previous poster talked about a growing militant left, not the 70s holdovers. But the best he can produce is some silly Canadian politics (quotas and such). A far cry from the militant Maoist revolutionaries of China, for example, and really just grousing about not liking the results of democratic exchange (they can always be voted out). Real political violence is ugly, but is also common in periods of instability. The current warfare in Syria or demonstrations in Venezuela are good examples. In the US, violence is much more common with the fringes of the political right than the left, particularly with racial identity groups, though leftists are more commonly seen in protest mode. But the violent elements, like most extremists, represent a small fringe element, not a mainstream view. If anything, America is much farther removed from embracing political violence than it has been historically.
I suggest that if anyone thinks that quotas on gender in government is the worst thing going politically, they might want to take a look a the number of environmental activists that have been killed.
Yes, caused by leftists. Go look up the information as to what groups were detonating thousands of bombs in the US during that time period and the reasoning espoused by those groups as to why the bombings were being done. Then go look for the time period during which thousands of bombs were set off by right wing fringe groups in the US. The far left has always been a proponent of rapid drastic revolutionary change and therefore championed violence as the most efficient means to achieve those goals. In contrast the conservative fringe isn't looking to violently change the system their objective is to preserve an existing power structure so they work through the apparatus of the state instead of against it.
First of all, you completely ignored the fact that the leftist bombings occurred during an overall violent time. This in no way excuses them, but if you fast forward to right wing terrorism, it has spiked during a lull in violent criminal activity. If I didn't make it clear, it is not an excuse for any ideology, but violent activity in an already epidemically violent time is harder to paint as clearly radical. Likewise any clear US leftist violence pretty much disappeared with the crime wave which is exactly when right wing violence takes off. So if leftism caused the violence, why did it pretty much go away? Modern US leftists rarely get past protest.
Second, the conservative fringe includes rightist revolutionaries who have no interest in preserving the apparatus of power if it doesn't serve them. At the most extreme, the want the destruction of the current system to be replaced by a racially driven or radical ideology model. Even in less extreme right and conservative groups, there is a strong anti-government streak. And that is before you get to right wing elements of Islamic terrorism. Hence why they are dubbed extremists and the fringe.
Painting the left as inherently violent and conservative extremists as firmly statist(!) is so disingenuous, it borders on absurdity.
Manchu wrote: "SJ movements" strike me as consistently leaning toward authoritarianism. The racist component of social justice is, reminiscent of Nazi ideology, the insistence on imagining every aspect of politics as fundamentally about race.
And again, saying "Party ABC is racist" is nothing more than a component of opposing Party XYZ's agenda. It has no actual relevance to the topic of why libertarianism is, in the United States, a strand of political conservatism.
If you really can't understand why fighting for historically oppressed groups is different from a majority group asserting inherent genetic superiority, you may need to do some reading. And, again, if you don't understand the interplay of racial identity groups, American politics, and political parties there is a ton of info out there.
Authoritarianism is about consolidation of power; SJWs, even in the fevered imaginings of the right, rarely amount to little more than individuals exercising their voice, not the crushing weight of government action. But I get the irony of comparing them to Nazis in one breath then trying to shoo out discussion of racial politics with another.
skyth wrote: Well, Libertarianism sees nothing inherently wrong with racism...
Which definition of Lib?
Every one that I've seen. Not saying that it supports it, but lack of condemnation of it is de facto support. Especially since libertarianism is often used to attack anti-racism regulations. It's done in the guise of defending someone's right to do business with whom they choose.
Though I really think a good portion of people who claim to be for Libertarians are actually Authoritarians that have don't have the backing of the current government.
jmurph wrote: Painting the left as inherently violent and conservative extremists as firmly statist(!) is so disingenuous, it borders on absurdity. .
Jumping in only really because I find this ongoing line of reason absurd.
Conservative political violence has the inherent advantage of generally being "in power." To cut straight to the point; Jim Crow. Jim Crow was rampant political violence, carried out under the auspice of law and order. The police wouldn't just cover up the rape, murder, and assault of racial minorities, but instigated it themselves because the entire structure of Jim Crow was dedicated at every level of society to inflicting violence and keeping a section of the populace in perpetual fear and powerlessness. So sure, you can claim extremists on the left have carried out more terror attacks throughout US history, but I could just turn around and say that political oppression in America has always come from the right, and that statement would be just about as valid if we want to ignore anything sensible like how all those "terrorist" bombings in the 60s weren't really about terror as much as media coverage and the left has instigated plenty of oppression on its own in our 200+ years.
So maybe everyone should just get the feth over themselves, stop looking at loonies as the mainline of the other side and start dealing in reality?
And again, saying "Party ABC is racist" is nothing more than a component of opposing Party XYZ's agenda.
If true it can also be a statement of fact so...
It has no actual relevance to the topic of why libertarianism is, in the United States, a strand of political conservatism.
There's even an article linked in thread that explains how Libertarianism gained a lot of initial footing in the US by appealing to segregationists on the heels of the 1964 CRA, and you're really just going to completely gloss over that and make a generic statement about the irrelevance of racism in why libertarianism became a strand of conservatism?
This is why posting in the OT is more trouble than its worth. I get it. Some people are tired of hearing talk about what is and isn't racist, but plugging your fingers in your ears and going "nah nah nah nah" every time the topic comes up is so childish it belongs on Trumps twitter feed.
Now that you mention it, I guess there is some irony in the fact that both Nazis and so-called SJWs are obsessively preoccupied with race ideology. But more to the point of the thread, it is this kind of doctrinaire pre-committment to a specific, er, Weltanschauung and the insistence that everyone else buy into it (on pain of being an Enemy) that connects the two as authoritarian positions.
Nah, I specifically addressed it. The article was hack partisan electioneering and not reliable analysis of American politics. Goldwater's opposition to the CRA as an unacceptable expansion of government authority meant people who were already separately committed to segregation could support him, regardless of their own beliefs about government authority. That doesn't amount to a connection between racism and libertarian politics.
skyth wrote: Well, Libertarianism sees nothing inherently wrong with racism...
That's not true at all. Libertarianism doesn't condone or encourage racism, it simply doesn't want the State to use its monopoly of force to punish people for their beliefs, including racist beliefs. Libertarians place more value on individual freedom than on government enforced collectivist control over behavior. Private businesses, private property, your own private personhood should be protected by the government not intruded upon by it. The government should work to protect the freedom of the minority from the tyranny of the majority and the most important and vulnerable minority is the individual. The Libertarian opposition to the Civil Rights Act was a pro liberty stance consistent with their core beliefs. Private businesses should retain the right to set their own limitations on service, whether people can smoke or not, bring young children in with them, wear shoes or shirts, or only allow certain ethnicities, genders or skin tones that's your right as an individual business owner. If you want to be a racist business owner you put your racism on public display and let the market determine your success or failure. Public/State entities should be barred from discriminating against anyone because everyone is equal under the law and the state governs all equally but private individuals can't be forced to do business with anyone against their will, or forced to allow anyone on their property against their will or forced to endure any intrusion against their person against their will. Every individual owns their person, their labor and their property those are key tenets of Libertarianism and there's nothing racist in those beliefs.
You have the freedom to be as ignorant and as bigoted as you want, believe whatever ethnocentric supremacist garbage you want as long as you don't escalate those beliefs into actions that cause harm to another person. Libertarians were fine with ending segregation and ending discrimination by the state but trying to outlaw racism on the individual basis was a step too far. Libertarians would have the same objection to laws that would attempt to make it illegal for individuals to practice communism or fascism or chauvinism or any other kind of -ism because making ideas/beliefs illegal is impractical and excessively intrusive.
His analysis of Goldwater and how his politics helped flip the American South from blue to red in the wake of the CRA is historically accurate, and his discussion of how the issue of Civil Rights has proven an obstacle for Libertarians in mainstream American politics into today is quite astute political analysis. There's a reason Libertarian ideology made more progress under the the banner of "Republican" than "Libertarian." But hey who am I to suggest hat you are still glossing over the issue simply because you find racism talk annoying?
Goldwater's opposition to the CRA as an unacceptable expansion of government authority meant people who were already separately committed to segregation could support him, regardless of their own beliefs about government authority.
Firstly the article made that point. It was 1 of 3 major points. Secondly, that is a connection between racism and Libertarian politics, but hey;
It has no actual relevance to the topic of why libertarianism is, in the United States, a strand of political conservatism.
That doesn't amount to a connection between racism and libertarian politics.
No goal posts have been moved. Having avoided a specific conflict does not amount to a common ideological denominator between racists and libertarians.
You stated by saying that racism "has no actual relevance to the topic of why libertarianism is, in the United States, a strand of political conservatism" which is silly because an entire article was posted detailing how racism (namely segregationists) pushed Libertarianism into the realm of American Conservatism by filling the seats in Goldwater's theater. It doesn't matter whether or not Goldwater was a segregationist or a racist himself.* That segregationists were filling the seats and taking up the banner of Libertarian throughout the late 60s and much of the 70s made the brand name unpalatable to the increasingly social justice motivated American Left. Especially when you add in knowledge of American history, it highlights the problem of how Libertarianism is supposed to protect the civil rights it espouses as paramount from being subjugated by social collectivism (ongoing example, Jim Crow).
Racism is completely relevant as to why Libertarianism is associated with Conservativism, and the "hack" analysis of how this is an ongoing obstacle for Libertarians is again not remotely partisan and quite astute.
*I think for a lot of people Goldwater ends up like "Bret." "I like Bret. he's a good guy. Says what he means, means what he says. A little crazy sometimes but who isn't? I just can't hang out with him because he has a lot of donkey-cave friends" which I guess you could say some way or another about pretty much any political ideology so my personal response to someone who is thinking of being Libertarian is "just do it" cause you're gonna have to deal with wackadoos making you look bad no matter where you sit *shrug*
That doesn't amount to a connection between racism and libertarian politics.
Then you said this, which is also false because you can't simultaneously acknowledge that segregationists latched onto Goldwater's budding Libertarianism and say racism and Libertarian politics have no connection. The former need not explicitly endorse the later for them to be connected in the political landscape and just because Libertarians have blinders on about the implications of their ideology doesn't mean the hack is wrong in pointing out that for non-libertarians those implications can be problematic. I'm not even sure why that needs to be explained to someone who can throw out the word "weltanschauung."
Now your saying;
Having avoided a specific conflict does not amount to a common ideological denominator between racists and libertarians.
Which I'm not even sure exactly what that means. "Specific conflict" is kind of ironic for this sentence because its incredibly vague what you mean. Racism? Segregation? Civil Rights? Either way you've moved through three distinct goal posts at this point; a matter of history, a matter of politics, and a matter of ideology. Interconnected though they may be these are three distinct issues that can be answered wrong, wrong, and debatable. The first two are rather patent matters of fact.
Sorry you are having so much trouble here, LoH. But I think you are making it harder than it has to be for the sake of rhetorical posturing. Goldwater opposed the '64 CRA as an unacceptable expansion of federal power, not because racism has any inherent purchase on New Right politics nor even as a sop to segregationists. It is absurd to claim that Goldwater was a racist or that racism is a component of libertarianism on the grounds that he opposed the CRA, much less on the grounds that actual segregationists also opposed the CRA. In fact, the South did not "flip" to libertarianism - certainly not as a matter of voting for Nixon in 1968. Indeed, LBJ campaigned against Goldwater in the South by referencing Goldwater's past support of civil rights.
Stevefamine wrote: I'm amazing Anarchism and Very Libertarian isn't a 90%
I would not expect that to be the case. Most people I've ever met accept that the government has at least some uses, even if they hate authority figures.
skyth wrote: Well, Libertarianism sees nothing inherently wrong with racism...
That's not true at all. Libertarianism doesn't condone or encourage racism, it simply doesn't want the State to use its monopoly of force to punish people for their beliefs, including racist beliefs. Libertarians place more value on individual freedom than on government enforced collectivist control over behavior. Private businesses, private property, your own private personhood should be protected by the government not intruded upon by it. The government should work to protect the freedom of the minority from the tyranny of the majority and the most important and vulnerable minority is the individual. The Libertarian opposition to the Civil Rights Act was a pro liberty stance consistent with their core beliefs. Private businesses should retain the right to set their own limitations on service, whether people can smoke or not, bring young children in with them, wear shoes or shirts, or only allow certain ethnicities, genders or skin tones that's your right as an individual business owner. If you want to be a racist business owner you put your racism on public display and let the market determine your success or failure. Public/State entities should be barred from discriminating against anyone because everyone is equal under the law and the state governs all equally but private individuals can't be forced to do business with anyone against their will, or forced to allow anyone on their property against their will or forced to endure any intrusion against their person against their will. Every individual owns their person, their labor and their property those are key tenets of Libertarianism and there's nothing racist in those beliefs.
You have the freedom to be as ignorant and as bigoted as you want, believe whatever ethnocentric supremacist garbage you want as long as you don't escalate those beliefs into actions that cause harm to another person. Libertarians were fine with ending segregation and ending discrimination by the state but trying to outlaw racism on the individual basis was a step too far. Libertarians would have the same objection to laws that would attempt to make it illegal for individuals to practice communism or fascism or chauvinism or any other kind of -ism because making ideas/beliefs illegal is impractical and excessively intrusive.
Actually, what I said is very true. And your comments just proved it true by agreeing with it even though you claim you weren't.. There is nothing in Libertarianism that finds any issue with racism. I'm not saying that they think it is a good thing (Though significant quantities of 'libertarians' are only Libertarians because they want the freedom to be holes to other people that are different than them.) However, thinking that it's somehow ethical for someone to be racist and make a 'no blacks allowed' establishment (Even if it's being quiet about it) leaves the whole movement ethically and morally lacking.
And for the record, (If you were reading the rest of the thread, . Libertarians were NOT 'fine with ending segregation'.
Libertarianism only works where there is no significant power differential in a society. However, once there is a power differential, it just makes the power differential worse and worse.
Goldwater was not only fine with ending segregation but even fostered integrationalist policies in his own state. He believed that expansive federal projects ostensibly aimed at helping black people would ultimately yoke them to that system, a theme taken back up by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think LoH raised a good point when he said, "stop looking at loonies as the mainline of the other side and start dealing in real life."
Rosebuddy wrote: You can't really go from "libertarian" to "anarchist" because anarchism generally has a very collective view of things while libertarianism loathes the very idea of society.
Also, there is no actual difference between "authoritarian" and "totalitarian". The latter was simply invented to defend Western support of dictatorships. See, those other guys are totalitarian while our guys are merely authoritarian.
I'm libertarian and I don't hate society.
I just want to be left the hell alone. doesn't mean I hold anyone in contempt.
Manchu wrote: Sorry you are having so much trouble here, LoH.
Trouble?
I find your faux intellectualism amusing, not troublesome.
But I think you are making it harder than it has to be for the sake of rhetorical posturing.
Like this. that's just funny.
Goldwater opposed the '64 CRA as an unacceptable expansion of federal power, not because racism has any inherent purchase on New Right politics nor even as a sop to segregationists.
Indeed, that is why he did it, and whoever claimed he was sopping to segregationists?
The worst thing Goldwater did in my book was spark the late 80s UFO paranoia and on the scale of evil that's pretty damn low. The guy's reputation has been screwed because social conservatives worked really hard to ostracize him for his stances on abortion, homosexuality, and the religious right while the Left couldn't get over who voted for him in 64 (I doubt Goldwater would have ever jumped ship though from the Republican party, and he indeed did not). He said what he meant, meant what he said, and everyone ended up hating him except some racists who decided the whole Libertarian thing sounded kind of nice in 1964. Sad story really.
It is absurd to claim that Goldwater was a racist
It would be, especially since Goldwater had supported earlier more reserved drafts of the CRA while it was in the Senate. Its a good thing no one, not even an author who you seem obsessed with dismissing out of hand, ever made that claim. I mean that would be as silly as shoving words into someone's mouth to maintain a rhetorical tent pole.
that racism is a component of libertarianism on the grounds that he opposed the CRA
You seem to have conflated "is connected to" with "is a component of." Racism became connected to Libertarianism, and Goldwater, because he opposed the CRA. That is a circumstantial event of the times that became a part of the Libertarian legacy, and pointing it out and talking about it is quite distinct from saying "libertarianism is racist" or "Goldwater is racist" both things I haven't seen anyone say. I've gone through the whole thread. No one has claimed racism is a component of Libertarianism. One poster posted one article that articulated how racism has been a problematic issue for Libertarians in American politics, and it was a pretty good one, and you've spent most of the last two pages arguing against it with a lexicon that is all flare and no substance. The closest anyone has come is to talk about the implications of Libertarian ideology on Civil Rights which I think is very valid. It's one thing for a Libertarian to say "I don't support segregation, but the government shouldn't be telling people and business owners how to live their lives" but actually making the later a practical reality without getting the former is a bit of a sticky wicket. How does a weak government that espouses individual liberty as paramount, respond to social collectivism that focuses itself on ostracizing and oppressing someone based not on their individuality but their group identity? What alternate safeguards are there, lacking what Libertarians would term invasive laws and regulations, to prevent say... Moroccans from being forced out of mainstream American society by everyone else because "Moroccans have a tacky fashion sense and we don't like it."
Which is why its funny that you mentioned rhetorical posturing. Your entire bit on this topic is little more than rhetorical posturing. I'd like to introduce you to kettle.
I understand that each situation in society (government for example) should be evaluated on a individual basis.
I tend to lean libertarian on my decision making on most issues, meaning, I default to whatever solution provides for the most individual liberty as possible while making sure peoples exercising of their liberties don't infringe on others rights.
I believe that the rights enshrined in the constitution should be held in the highest regard and oppose any laws that would inhibit those rights
Racism hasn't been "problematic" (a word that is pure rhetorical posturing) for libertarian thought; that is part of the sleazy agenda of painting it as cover for racism. In reality, there is no inherent philosophical contradiction preventing libertarians from acknowledging that racism is a problem or addressing it as a matter of public policy, as demonstrated by Goldwater's own example as a statesman.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just Tony wrote: LoH? Jim Crow laws were written by Democrats. Leftists. Liberals. It had Republican opposition. Why does this get glossed over so much?
Because portraying the opposite was a key political tactic of the 1960s Democrats and, thanks partly to Republicans, it has never stopped being profitable and somewhat plausible.
Just Tony wrote: LoH? Jim Crow laws were written by Democrats. Leftists. Liberals. It had Republican opposition.
And as I've explained to you explicitly many times in the past, politics shift. In the era of Jim crow the Democrats were a conservative party socially. So were the Republicans really. All of America was quite socially conservative until the rise of the New Left and New Right in the Civil Rights era. Before that you'd find leftist/liberals were split between the two parties and one of the reasons FDR's New Deal coalition was such a political power house was because he managed to bridge some political gaps between conservatives and liberals in both parties. The political realignment that began with the New Deal coalition began changing the map, and quite on topic Goldwater's 1964 run and the birth of the modern American Libertarian movement was part of that realignment on the tail end of it.
You're taking the modern political dynamics of America and conflated it with our past, which is fallacious. As for why certain conservative elements in particular continually gloss over that history (especially Fox News from what I've seen), I assume its because it's easier to ignore your own demons when you can blame all the bad stuff on someone else.
Just Tony wrote: LoH? Jim Crow laws were written by Democrats. Leftists. Liberals. It had Republican opposition.
And as I've explained to you explicitly many times in the past, politics shift. In the era of Jim crow the Democrats were a conservative party socially. So were the Republicans really. All of America was quite socially conservative until the rise of the New Left and New Right in the Civil Rights era. Before that you'd find leftist/liberals were split between the two parties and one of the reasons FDR's New Deal coalition was such a political power house was because he managed to bridge some political gaps between conservatives and liberals in both parties. The political realignment that began with the New Deal coalition began changing the map, and quite on topic Goldwater's 1964 run and the birth of the modern American Libertarian movement was part of that realignment on the tail end of it.
You're taking the modern political dynamics of America and conflated it with our past, which is fallacious. As for why certain conservative elements in particular continually gloss over that history (especially Fox News from what I've seen), I assume its because it's easier to ignore your own demons when you can blame all the bad stuff on someone else.
IDK, the left seems to be pretty racist to me, by proposing policies that keep minorities under their thumb (entitlements) and using scaremonger tactics to acquire votes (OMG if you vote republican they will cut off your food stamps and grandma will die from starvation).
They have also created entitlement programs which favor unwed mothers and encourage women to have children in a one parent home.
IDK, the left seems to be pretty racist to me, by proposing policies that keep minorities under their thumb (entitlements) and using scaremonger tactics to acquire votes (OMG if you vote republican they will cut off your food stamps and grandma will die from starvation).
They have also created entitlement programs which favor unwed mothers and encourage women to have children in a one parent home.
Are you trying to conflate minorities with unwed welfare mothers?
And really, single mothers need the help. Especially poor ones. The policies are not to encourage that. The policies are there to make sure that children don't starve and have clothes and a place to live.
The New Deal was certainly a turning point but there was broad post-war agreement on certain socially progressive issues such as civil rights. The early 60s represent another - albeit temporarily abortive - turning point, especially for the American right - which had traditionally married isolationism and skepticism of powerful government. The 30s posed a significant challenge to both prongs. The developing Cold War all but demolished the isolationist prong. Goldwater rode that devlopment, strongly advocating anti-communist interventionist foreign policy while reinvigorating the other element, skepticism of federal government. Goldwater's ideology would have to wait out the 70s in the wings, however, until the rise of Ronald Reagan. This "New Right" thinking would again go into hibernation after Reagan, culminating in the rise of so-called Neoconservatism. It has reemerged in the wake of the collapse the Neocons, especially in state governments.
Manchu wrote: Racism hasn't been "problematic" (a word that is pure rhetorical posturing) for libertarian thought
I think lots of people use it while rhetorically posturing, but that doesn't mean everyone who does is or that saying something is "problematic" is sleazy. There's a whole wealth of people out there sadly who are smart enough to say words but not critically minded enough to make sense of them. Maybe you should address the substance of a statement instead. Much easier than constantly circling posters like straw men while you express your indignation at anyone who wants to talk about issues of race in American politics.
that is part of the sleazy agenda of painting it as cover for racism.
Who in this thread, or linked in it, did such a thing? Certainly wasn't anyone I've noticed, or a certain article writer. You're arguing a straw man. Saying that a given ideology has baggage is different from saying it is a cover. Certainly someone accused the Republicans as becoming more and more racist, but then I think there's plenty to talk about there. Again I think there's only one person here rhetorically posturing here, and it's not me.
In reality, there is no inherent philosophical contradiction preventing libertarians from acknowledging that racism is a problem or addressing it as a matter of public policy
In my experience and reading, Libertarians ignore the implications (a markedly different word from contradiction), because there really isn't a as of yet convincing answer to the charge. Who claimed there was a philosophical contradiction? I didn't. There is a distinction between "inherent philosophical contradiction" and "implication" or "I don't want to deal with it stop talking about it." I'd actually suggest the answer might be that we don't have to worry about it. Kids these days are all so socially conscious I'm told that they won't ever be mean to anyone less their feelings get hurt but somehow I'm skeptical about putting the fate of anyone's rights in the hands of anyone's good will with no back up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Supertony51 wrote: IDK, the left seems to be pretty racist to me, by proposing policies that keep minorities under their thumb (entitlements)
I wouldn't term the Democratic parties hang ups as racist. Really good movie about this recently called "Get Out." Pretty succulent stab at the issue. I think to many Democrats (and liberals) confuse pandering to minority groups with actually helping them. Affirmative actions have been completely ineffective, community building efforts half hearted at best and opportunistic at worst (namely how they are funded and organized on a borad scale), and the Democratic party hasn't proposed any meaningful legislation on the issue of actually helping perpetually poor minorities (or just the poor for that matter cause lots of whites are poor too) in a long time. Democrats and liberals I think too often follow social justice causes as fads, which isn't productive, and while I wouldn't call it racist, it's something frustrating and disappointing.
Its quite frustrating.
But that's all off this topic and better off in the other thread (there was a left/right one wasn't there?)
scaremonger tactics to acquire votes (OMG if you vote republican they will cut off your food stamps and grandma will die from starvation).
"We need Voter ID laws or all the illegals will vote in Democrats!"
skyth wrote: Well, Libertarianism sees nothing inherently wrong with racism...
That's not true at all. Libertarianism doesn't condone or encourage racism, it simply doesn't want the State to use its monopoly of force to punish people for their beliefs, including racist beliefs. Libertarians place more value on individual freedom than on government enforced collectivist control over behavior. Private businesses, private property, your own private personhood should be protected by the government not intruded upon by it. The government should work to protect the freedom of the minority from the tyranny of the majority and the most important and vulnerable minority is the individual. The Libertarian opposition to the Civil Rights Act was a pro liberty stance consistent with their core beliefs. Private businesses should retain the right to set their own limitations on service, whether people can smoke or not, bring young children in with them, wear shoes or shirts, or only allow certain ethnicities, genders or skin tones that's your right as an individual business owner. If you want to be a racist business owner you put your racism on public display and let the market determine your success or failure. Public/State entities should be barred from discriminating against anyone because everyone is equal under the law and the state governs all equally but private individuals can't be forced to do business with anyone against their will, or forced to allow anyone on their property against their will or forced to endure any intrusion against their person against their will. Every individual owns their person, their labor and their property those are key tenets of Libertarianism and there's nothing racist in those beliefs.
You have the freedom to be as ignorant and as bigoted as you want, believe whatever ethnocentric supremacist garbage you want as long as you don't escalate those beliefs into actions that cause harm to another person. Libertarians were fine with ending segregation and ending discrimination by the state but trying to outlaw racism on the individual basis was a step too far. Libertarians would have the same objection to laws that would attempt to make it illegal for individuals to practice communism or fascism or chauvinism or any other kind of -ism because making ideas/beliefs illegal is impractical and excessively intrusive.
Actually, what I said is very true. And your comments just proved it true by agreeing with it even though you claim you weren't.. There is nothing in Libertarianism that finds any issue with racism. I'm not saying that they think it is a good thing (Though significant quantities of 'libertarians' are only Libertarians because they want the freedom to be holes to other people that are different than them.) However, thinking that it's somehow ethical for someone to be racist and make a 'no blacks allowed' establishment (Even if it's being quiet about it) leaves the whole movement ethically and morally lacking.
And for the record, (If you were reading the rest of the thread, . Libertarians were NOT 'fine with ending segregation'.
Libertarianism only works where there is no significant power differential in a society. However, once there is a power differential, it just makes the power differential worse and worse.
Where in this thread was evidence provided that Libertarians were proponents of segregation or were accepting of institutionalized state mandated racism? Jim Crow laws are the antithesis of Libertarianism. A political philosophy founded on limited government and individual liberty doesn't condone or support government imposed oppression and suppression of rights of an entire demographic of people.
Goldwater was very clear in his opposition to segregation he simply objected to the federal overreach in the CRA and in Brown vs Board of Education. Justice Warren himself says right in the decision that there was nothing in the constitution or federal law that gave the federal govt jurisdiction over running states' public school systems but that the court agreed that segregated schools were wrong and should be struck down. Goldwater agreed that segregated schools were wrong and shouldn't exist but that a federal solution would require a new amendment to the constitution to give the federal govt power over state school systems or the states have to end segregated schools on the state level but you can't just give the federal govt control over state public school systems for the sake of a moral imperative. That isn't a defense of segregation or in any way a stance that segregation is ok, mora, ethical or justifiable it's simply a desire to clear legal and legislative obstacles to righting a wrong.
LOL "implication" is exactly the vehicle of this particular sleaze precisely because the evidence cannot support anything substantial. Again, I agree that there is more profit to be gained in dealing with real life rather than looney extremism (or sleazy electioneering "articles" like Ladd's). Skepticism of strong centralized power isn't the same thing as tearing up the federal and state constitutions and blocking all new legislation while mulching what's already on the books. American conservatism isn't actually about abandoning the lambs to the wolves, although you can easily find such sentiments on the fringe. But the same old tactic of "implying" that one's proposed solution is the only possible one, and that opposition amounts to (among other shameful things) racism, is tempting.
Just because he's talking about something you would rather ignore during election season doesn't make his article sleazy electioneering. You claimed he was trying undermine the Libertarian party, but that's not how I read it. Actually tackling and dealing with that issue would only make the Libertarian party stronger. They might actually get somewhere on both sides of the isle if they switched from a unilateral "repeal the CRA" position to something more nuanced, because so long as "repeal the CRA" is an actually espoused position of Libertarians they'll have to deal with people asking them questions about how civil rights with be safe guarded.
Skepticism of strong centralized power isn't the same thing as tearing up the federal and state constitutions and blocking all new legislation while mulching what's already on the books.
I didn't say it was.
American conservatism isn't actually about abandoning the lambs to the wolves
Are we talking about Libertarians or Conservatives? You seem to be struggling to actually follow the conversation coherently.
But the same old tactic of "implying" that one's proposed solution is the only possible one, and that opposition amounts to (among other shameful things) racism, is tempting.
What? Libertarians oppose the CRA and want it repealed. Sure that's not the only possible solution but it is the one that they propose, so I don't think it's unreasonable, sleazy, or dishonest to ask the follow up question "but what about when the North Dakota Morals Party wins all seats in the Standardsville, North Dakota town council and passes a law that bans any business from serving gay, trans, or non-Christian persons?" The CRA currently prevents such (EDIT: at least by common assumption and practice, guess SCOTUS will be tackling that one rather directly soon, nothing more glorious than a fist fight between religious freedom and civil rights laws XD), and it's hardly an implausible scenario today. I've asked this question myself and the response is "I support LGBT rights" which is fine and dandy good for you Tod have a high five, but that's not an answer to the question. Asking that question isn't accusing anyone of bigotry, or saying there's only one possible solution. It's a direct question to a directly stated legislative desire.
Do you have anything to actually say on the topic, in response to what I've actually said, or is ad hominem and straw man responses all you have? Much like Tod, you seem unable to actually address the topic and would much rather rant about something that I can only assume bugs you but isn't actually here in thread.
Just Tony wrote: I'm so confused here. In the US, Libertarians are right leaning, yet totalitarianism is always portrayed as far right politics. Am I missing something?
You're missing a few things. For starters, libertarianism is a niche within US politics, if a theory doesn't perfectly fit in libertarianism it doesn't matter too much. But the bigger thing you're missing is there is no shortage of criticisms of groups on the left as totalitarian. The world found its way in to common use because it was so frequently, and correctly, used to criticise the communist regimes in Russia and China.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Selym wrote: It is because of people not agreeing with/understanding this principle that we sometimes see gender quotas - like in the Canadian cabinet.
Not quite. There are arguments for diversity outside of the opportunity/outcome concept. That argument is limited to achievement/reward after all, it doesn't factor in the best operation of the final group, which is the ultimate consideration of course. That is, even though the most accomplished 5 people might be white men, that doesn't mean the best group should be those five white men. Diversity of opinion has value, and so if two very well accomplished candidates come from diverse backgrounds then they are likely to help produce a better functioning group overall. This doesn't have to go as far as 50/50 gender splits in cabinets, of course, but doing things to make sure a diversity of voices contribute is a good thing in and of itself.
The other issue is that exactly where opportunity ends and outcome starts isn't that clear. Is college acceptance an outcome of highschool performance, or is it part of the opportunities for people to excel in their careers? And beyond that, there's a whole lot of situations where people will confuse outcomes and opportunities to guard their own economic interests. Look what happens if you suggest every primary school and secondary school should be equally funded to give all kids equal opportunity.
Libertarians shouldn't even be a choice. They're a myth, like bigfoot.
there's on about 499,492 of them registered, and 30% of americans believe bigfoot is real. And in the states they are right wingers as almost all people who call themselves libertarians voted for trump instead of Johnson.
sirlynchmob wrote: Libertarians shouldn't even be a choice. They're a myth, like bigfoot.
there's on about 499,492 of them registered, and 30% of americans believe bigfoot is real. And in the states they are right wingers as almost all people who call themselves libertarians voted for trump instead of Johnson.
Hi... I'm a right-winger that voted for Johnson (aka, 'Da Stoner).
But libertarians voting for El Trumpo doesn't make them right wingers any more than Hilary voters makes the left wingers.
My anecdotal exposure to libertarians seems like they want to be more contrarian of "the big parties" than over specific policy details.
feeder wrote: Libertarianism is just as pie in the sky as Communism. I have yet to see a version of Libertarian party platform that doesn't immediately result in hard plutocracy.
Libertarianism's great power is in its irrelevance. Any unintended consequence can be sidestepped by some new element to libertarianism made up on the spot and forgotten just as quickly, and any practical issue can be handwaved away. They can do this because they have never had to deal with the responsibilities of actual power, and trying to apply social and economic models to the messy reality of the real world.
This is very similar to communists, funnily enough. I guess one thing in defense of libertarian, though, is that they seem to know deep down that their ideas aren't real world concepts. Any time they get anything close to real world power they run the hell away, back in to the bubble of simple ideas that never have to be tested. Communists lacked that one bit of sense, so the libertarians are one up on them there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Supertony51 wrote: IDK, the left seems to be pretty racist to me, by proposing policies that keep minorities under their thumb (entitlements) and using scaremonger tactics to acquire votes (OMG if you vote republican they will cut off your food stamps and grandma will die from starvation).
You've made an assumption that welfare programs are more likely to keep people in the lowest rungs of society. This is factually wrong. Hopelessly out of step with decades of analysis on the subject.
Just please, go and hunt down some stuff on google. Go type in 'social mobility and social welfare' or something like that. And then once you've learned what the literature says, think for a second about all the people who claimed to you that social welfare programs trapped people in dependancy. Realise those people were lying to you, and then stop listening to those people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: My anecdotal exposure to libertarians seems like they want to be more contrarian of "the big parties" than over specific policy details.
Yes, this exactly. The appeal of libertarianism to many is that it grants them an ideology without any kind of accountability for what that ideology does when in power, because it is never in power. It is the moral purity of powerlessness. In the US the socialist party has the exact same appeal.
Hi... I'm a right-winger that voted for Johnson (aka, 'Da Stoner).
But libertarians voting for El Trumpo doesn't make them right wingers any more than Hilary voters makes the left wingers.
My anecdotal exposure to libertarians seems like they want to be more contrarian of "the big parties" than over specific policy details.
I think being fair we should point out that the Libertarian Party did 300% (or is it 200? w/e) better in 2016 than it did in 2012! Sure they just went from .99% to 3.24% of the vote, but that's a pretty impressive gain
This is very similar to communists, funnily enough. I guess one thing in defense of libertarian, though, is that they seem to know deep down that their ideas aren't real world concepts. Any time they get anything close to real world power they run the hell away, back in to the bubble of simple ideas that never have to be tested. Communists lacked that one bit of sense, so the libertarians are one up on them there.
Are we talking about Libertarians or Conservatives? You seem to be struggling to actually follow the conversation coherently.
From my POV, that seems to be your problem. I mean, just specifically, you and I have been talking about Barry Goldwater - so it should be obvious, just based on that, that we have been talking about conservatism, right? But it should also be more obvious, generally. This thread proposes an ideological spectrum juxtaposing authoritarianism and libertarianism. One poster asked why, if these are polar opposites, both are associated with American conservatism. The answer is, very broadly speaking, that American conservatism variously emphasizes the importance of law and order on one hand and the importance of individual liberty on the other. Having to recapitulate the conversation, especially in response to the assertion that I'm the one who is "struggling," is tedious and frustrating so going forward I am just going to ignore your gradual derailment strategy.
They can do this because they have never had to deal with the responsibilities of actual power
I get that you are referencing Johnson et al., specifically, but libertarians, understood in the context of the authoritarian/libertarian spectrum we're using ITT, have always played a role in actually governing the United States. The trouble is framing "libertarians" as definitionally opposed to any kind of government power up to and including governing itself - or, worse, framing libertarianism as a kind of accountability-free third-party lobby (which may not be a terrible way to understand Johnson). I think a more useful understanding for our purposes would be that authoritarians, again as contemplated by the terminology of this thread, more readily embrace strong, direct application of government power whereas libertarians tend to be skeptical of this. Although Johnson may capitalize on making abstract, ideologically pure claims without needing to back them up with nitty gritty policy, libertarians generally emphasize the importance of mechanisms of accountability in policy making.
Manchu wrote: I get that you are referencing Johnson et al., specifically, but libertarians, understood in the context of the authoritarian/libertarian spectrum we're using ITT, have always played a role in actually governing the United States. The trouble is framing "libertarians" as definitionally opposed to any kind of government power up to and including governing itself - or, worse, framing libertarianism as a kind of accountability-free third-party lobby (which may not be a terrible way to understand Johnson). I think a more useful understanding for our purposes would be that authoritarians, again as contemplated by the terminology of this thread, more readily embrace strong, direct application of government power whereas libertarians tend to be skeptical of this. Although Johnson may capitalize on making abstract, ideologically pure claims without needing to back them up with nitty gritty policy, libertarians generally emphasize the importance of mechanisms of accountability in policy making.
Yes, there are many different groups who identify as libertarian, and yes my comment was directed at those in the formal Libertarian party, and those who claim on the internet to support them. There are other libertarian groups, including those who work on the fringes of the Republican party. I wish I could write pithy comments to make fun of all them at once, but I'm not that clever, I have to settle for making fun of one group at a time.
sirlynchmob wrote: Libertarians shouldn't even be a choice. They're a myth, like bigfoot.
there's on about 499,492 of them registered, and 30% of americans believe bigfoot is real. And in the states they are right wingers as almost all people who call themselves libertarians voted for trump instead of Johnson.
American politicians are not renowned for their correct use of political terminology. Libertarianism here refers not to a specific political party or movement, but to the opposition to Authoritarianism. It resides on an axis perpendicular to the Left/Right axis, and thus implies no correlation.
Libertarianism's great power is in its irrelevance. Any unintended consequence can be sidestepped by some new element to libertarianism made up on the spot and forgotten just as quickly, and any practical issue can be handwaved away. They can do this because they have never had to deal with the responsibilities of actual power, and trying to apply social and economic models to the messy reality of the real world.
This is very similar to communists, funnily enough. I guess one thing in defense of libertarian, though, is that they seem to know deep down that their ideas aren't real world concepts. Any time they get anything close to real world power they run the hell away, back in to the bubble of simple ideas that never have to be tested. Communists lacked that one bit of sense, so the libertarians are one up on them there.
Well if you're going to believe in an ideal, it only makes sense to recognise that if you had your way everything would go to gak. I'm a Lib on this axis, but I am too practical to actually vote/argue that way. I like to see my authorities being monitored and questioned, but I find it to be foolish at best to take an Authoritarian measure like the UK's Surveillance State and reject it. It's just too useful, with too little meaningful impact on non-criminals.
Manchu wrote: I mean, just specifically, you and I have been talking about Barry Goldwater - so it should be obvious, just based on that, that we have been talking about conservatism, right?
Just specifically, we've gone from talking about a dozen different things, mostly straw men that don't remotely address anything I've said, and expressing your frustration that I won't follow you around the merry go round.
I don't have to derail something that was off the rails from the get go.
I'd like to revise my past statement. Libertarianism, while absolutely a long-term goal, is not feasible until multiple social and economic factors are resolved.
Paradoxically, to reach the ideal libertarian end, temporary authoritarian measures must be utilized to do the following.
• Establish education systems designed to eradicate prejudice.
• Establish laws, and using force, to protect democracy and individual rights as a concept, from those who would seek to oppress others.
• Establish measures to close wealth gaps, in preparation for money and class to be made obsolete.
• Using current economic incentives, incentivize the development technologies that would allow for the reduction of scarcity worldwide. This being fusion power, primarily.
• Implement measures to re-educate those who hold views actively harmful to society as a whole, or that would result in the infringement of other's individual rights.
Certain ideas must be limited or eradicated to work with libertarianism, as they inherently seek to strip individual rights, and control others. Any form of prejudice is incompatible with libertarianism, as is the majority of organized religion, as both of those ideas lead to oppression and restrictions on personal liberties, nearly all of the time.
So, I suppose that libertarianism can work, provided the people in our theoretical libertarian/anarchist society are all rational, reasonable people. Which isn't likely.
As covered, I freely identify as a lefty liberal socialist. I want equality of opportunity for all.
And when I consider the right wing's equivalent position - I just can't understand it.
Now that doesn't make my political opposites evil - I just can't get my heard round how one justifies an 'I'm alright, Jack' mindset.
We've got so much work to do as a society. Equality of opportunity encourages a well skilled, and thus productive workforce. The more people in work, the fewer people claiming benefits. The fewer people reliant on benefits, the less tax money is set aside for that purpose. The less tax money we need to raise, the more money businesses have. The more money businesses have, the harder it is for them not to pay a decent wage.
See, I get looking down on certain people. In my life, I've met people from privileged backgrounds who've thrown it all away with a decidedly severe drug habit. Not all of them are still with us. But to look down on any children they might've produced? That's not cool man. Nobody, not the poorest child nor one born into extreme wealth can help who their parents are. So cut them a break.
Sick of seeing homeless people? That's gonna take funding to sort out. Sick of seeing people lazing about? Me too - but that's gonna take a reworked education programme not solely focussed on academia, something which not everyone is cut out for.
I don't endorse communism though. If you've worked hard, you deserve your perks. But socialism isn't communism. It's about caring about those around you, and wanting to build the strongest, most cohesive society we can manage - for the good of all.
After all, the lower the poverty rates, the lower the crime rates, especially violent crime (white collar crime, perhaps not so much).
But we can get there. We just need to pull together and recognise that the good of society trumps the good of the individual every time.
Verviedi wrote: I'd like to revise my past statement. Libertarianism, while absolutely a long-term goal, is not feasible until multiple social and economic factors are resolved.
Paradoxically, to reach the ideal libertarian end, temporary authoritarian measures must be utilized to do the following.
• Establish education systems designed to eradicate prejudice.
• Establish laws, and using force, to protect democracy and individual rights as a concept, from those who would seek to oppress others.
• Establish measures to close wealth gaps, in preparation for money and class to be made obsolete.
• Using current economic incentives, incentivize the development technologies that would allow for the reduction of scarcity worldwide. This being fusion power, primarily.
• Implement measures to re-educate those who hold views actively harmful to society as a whole, or that would result in the infringement of other's individual rights.
Certain ideas must be limited or eradicated to work with libertarianism, as they inherently seek to strip individual rights, and control others. Any form of prejudice is incompatible with libertarianism, as is the majority of organized religion, as both of those ideas lead to oppression and restrictions on personal liberties, nearly all of the time.
So, I suppose that libertarianism can work, provided the people in our theoretical libertarian/anarchist society are all rational, reasonable people. Which isn't likely.
What libertarian in the universe wants the bolded? I mean, honestly, this is the major push of every socialist and communist platform. Class warfare is a Marxist thing, freedom to pursue your life is a libertarian thing. Lacking opportunity or any motivating factors to succeed is definitely a Marxist thing.
After all, the lower the poverty rates, the lower the crime rates, especially violent crime (white collar crime, perhaps not so much).
I agree with most of what you're saying, but this isn't quite accurate. Wealth inequality causes crime. The greater, the worse. If everyone is poor, there is nothing to steal. If everyone is rich, there is no discernible advantage. Crime can only be eliminated in a post-capitalist society. Why post-capitalist? Because we need active incentives to motivate people to progress so that we can reach a post-scarcity era.
Rewarding people based on success is a capitalist measure, and it works. Unfortunately, the can-do's will become rich, while the can-not's will become envious. Capitalism thus causes crime, but is necessary for human advancement.
skyth wrote: Libertarianism only works with a small wealth/power gap between people.
No it just requires a reliable means to constrain government within set limitations of its authority.
The government isn't run by experts, they don't come up with the best policies or smartest solutions, they're just the people that won elections. Would you want Mitch McConnell, Chuck Shumer, Ted Cruz, Maxine Waters or Jeff Sessions to baby sit your kids? Balance your checkbook? Run the company that employs you? It's fething scary the people we elect and appoint to be in charge of everything and the less power they have over our lives the better off we all would be.
After all, the lower the poverty rates, the lower the crime rates, especially violent crime (white collar crime, perhaps not so much).
I agree with most of what you're saying, but this isn't quite accurate. Wealth inequality causes crime. The greater, the worse. If everyone is poor, there is nothing to steal. If everyone is rich, there is no discernible advantage. Crime can only be eliminated in a post-capitalist society. Why post-capitalist? Because we need active incentives to motivate people to progress so that we can reach a post-scarcity era.
Rewarding people based on success is a capitalist measure, and it works. Unfortunately, the can-do's will become rich, while the can-not's will become envious. Capitalism thus causes crime, but is necessary for human advancement.
We don't need capitalism to have envy and crime. We'll have crime as long as people believe that criminal actions are the easiest and surest way to get that which they want. If somebody wants to get rich they'll look for the surest path to achieve that goal whether it's being a broker on Wall St or selling subprime mortgages or selling heroin on the street or stealing cars or creating a new app or becoming a professional athlete etc. People will always be different individuals in different circumstances with different attitudes, skillsets and desires and some will view crime as a viable option to get what they want and some won't.
IDK, the left seems to be pretty racist to me, by proposing policies that keep minorities under their thumb (entitlements) and using scaremonger tactics to acquire votes (OMG if you vote republican they will cut off your food stamps and grandma will die from starvation).
They have also created entitlement programs which favor unwed mothers and encourage women to have children in a one parent home.
Are you trying to conflate minorities with unwed welfare mothers?
And really, single mothers need the help. Especially poor ones. The policies are not to encourage that. The policies are there to make sure that children don't starve and have clothes and a place to live.
Subsidizing something is not an effective way to get less of something.
Very good point, Prestor Jon. Way too much is being made of this pseudo mythological Libertarian "end state" when all that we're really talking about ITT as far as "libertarian" goes is a counterpoint to authoritarianism. Simply put, this is the difference between believing government tends to be a better or worse solution to social problems. It's not about any kind of utopia.
After all, the lower the poverty rates, the lower the crime rates, especially violent crime (white collar crime, perhaps not so much).
I agree with most of what you're saying, but this isn't quite accurate. Wealth inequality causes crime. The greater, the worse. If everyone is poor, there is nothing to steal. If everyone is rich, there is no discernible advantage. Crime can only be eliminated in a post-capitalist society. Why post-capitalist? Because we need active incentives to motivate people to progress so that we can reach a post-scarcity era.
Rewarding people based on success is a capitalist measure, and it works. Unfortunately, the can-do's will become rich, while the can-not's will become envious. Capitalism thus causes crime, but is necessary for human advancement.
We don't need capitalism to have envy and crime. We'll have crime as long as people believe that criminal actions are the easiest and surest way to get that which they want. If somebody wants to get rich they'll look for the surest path to achieve that goal whether it's being a broker on Wall St or selling subprime mortgages or selling heroin on the street or stealing cars or creating a new app or becoming a professional athlete etc. People will always be different individuals in different circumstances with different attitudes, skillsets and desires and some will view crime as a viable option to get what they want and some won't.
IDK, the left seems to be pretty racist to me, by proposing policies that keep minorities under their thumb (entitlements) and using scaremonger tactics to acquire votes (OMG if you vote republican they will cut off your food stamps and grandma will die from starvation).
They have also created entitlement programs which favor unwed mothers and encourage women to have children in a one parent home.
Are you trying to conflate minorities with unwed welfare mothers?
And really, single mothers need the help. Especially poor ones. The policies are not to encourage that. The policies are there to make sure that children don't starve and have clothes and a place to live.
Subsidizing something is not an effective way to get less of something.
Not providing assistance is closing the barn door after the horses already left. All it does is punish children for being born to the wrong parents.
As a socialist, it may surprise you that I'm not actually opposed to capitalism.
I am however opposed to how it's developed.
To excel, we do need more carrot, less stick. There should be a reward for hard work - but that doesn't mean there should be punishment for the opposite.
But right now? Opportunities are too controlled. They're reserved for the 'worthy', a shorthand for the 'already wealthy'. Look at The Old Boy Network. So long as you went to the Right School, your chances to end up on the bones of your arse are extremely limited, and chances of walking into a decently paid career job increased. If you went to the local comp and got straight A's, you're still at a disadvantage to someone who got lesser grades, but attended Eton, Tonbridge School or any other well thought of educational establishment. And that's a bullpoop way to run things. It rewards the wrong people for the wrong thing.
But hey. People are, and always will be, idiots. If I had a magic wand to wave, and could evenly distribute all the world's collective wealth between each man, woman and child, by the end of that day you'll still have Rich and Poor. Some just can't help but make boneheaded decisions, and some can't help but be clever buggers.
All I want to do is knock away societal support and acceptance of the current class system. Equality of opportunity. Everyone standing on their own two feet. Then, and only then, will we see if the cream truly does rise to the top, or if instead gak Floats.
The current sociological construct of self replicating classes is utterly ponk. It needs to be dismantled for the good of humanity, and the economy.
After all, the lower the poverty rates, the lower the crime rates, especially violent crime (white collar crime, perhaps not so much).
I agree with most of what you're saying, but this isn't quite accurate. Wealth inequality causes crime. The greater, the worse. If everyone is poor, there is nothing to steal. If everyone is rich, there is no discernible advantage. Crime can only be eliminated in a post-capitalist society. Why post-capitalist? Because we need active incentives to motivate people to progress so that we can reach a post-scarcity era.
Rewarding people based on success is a capitalist measure, and it works. Unfortunately, the can-do's will become rich, while the can-not's will become envious. Capitalism thus causes crime, but is necessary for human advancement.
We don't need capitalism to have envy and crime. We'll have crime as long as people believe that criminal actions are the easiest and surest way to get that which they want. If somebody wants to get rich they'll look for the surest path to achieve that goal whether it's being a broker on Wall St or selling subprime mortgages or selling heroin on the street or stealing cars or creating a new app or becoming a professional athlete etc. People will always be different individuals in different circumstances with different attitudes, skillsets and desires and some will view crime as a viable option to get what they want and some won't.
IDK, the left seems to be pretty racist to me, by proposing policies that keep minorities under their thumb (entitlements) and using scaremonger tactics to acquire votes (OMG if you vote republican they will cut off your food stamps and grandma will die from starvation).
They have also created entitlement programs which favor unwed mothers and encourage women to have children in a one parent home.
Are you trying to conflate minorities with unwed welfare mothers?
And really, single mothers need the help. Especially poor ones. The policies are not to encourage that. The policies are there to make sure that children don't starve and have clothes and a place to live.
Subsidizing something is not an effective way to get less of something.
Not providing assistance is closing the barn door after the horses already left. All it does is punish children for being born to the wrong parents.
Why are you so focused on the wealth gap? The wealth gap is a red herring, the difference between the highest and the lowest isn't important, what's important is the amount of wealth on the low end. If I waved a magic wand and doubled everyone's income instantly everyone would be better off, the lowest earners would see the most significant improvement in their lives, the wealthiest wouldn't see much change at all and the wealth gap would also double. If people on the low end can earn enough to achieve financial stability and help create opportunities to try to better themselves then that would be awesome and great for society regardless of the fact that people like Bill Gates and Lebron James would still be orders of magnitude wealthier than the people on the low end of the spectrum.
Nobody is arguing that low income unwed mothers shouldn't receive assistance but if low income unwed mothers are a problem for society than simply handing them a check from the govt every month isn't a solution to that problem. The goal of govt assistance should be to help people not need govt assistance anymore not to create govt dependencies that perpetuate generational cycles of a disadvantaged poverty stricken underclass.
Why are you so focused on the wealth gap? The wealth gap is a red herring, the difference between the highest and the lowest isn't important, what's important is the amount of wealth on the low end. If I waved a magic wand and doubled everyone's income instantly everyone would be better off, the lowest earners would see the most significant improvement in their lives, the wealthiest wouldn't see much change at all and the wealth gap would also double. If people on the low end can earn enough to achieve financial stability and help create opportunities to try to better themselves then that would be awesome and great for society regardless of the fact that people like Bill Gates and Lebron James would still be orders of magnitude wealthier than the people on the low end of the spectrum.
Nobody is arguing that low income unwed mothers shouldn't receive assistance but if low income unwed mothers are a problem for society than simply handing them a check from the govt every month isn't a solution to that problem. The goal of govt assistance should be to help people not need govt assistance anymore not to create govt dependencies that perpetuate generational cycles of a disadvantaged poverty stricken underclass.
How exactly (lacking magic wands of course), does the low end earn enough to achieve financial stability and create opportunity when most of the new wealth being generated is going straight to the top, while the amount of wealth available to the bottom is increasingly shrinking? That's all the widening of the wealth gap represents in the end so okay we'll skip the "red herring" and go straight to the... turf? Indeed the exact difference between the highest and lowest probably isn't that important, but as they say money doesn't grow on trees so how exactly is pointing out that more and more wealth is focused on the top and less and less is at the bottom a red herring when discussing economic outcomes? I mean sure it's nice to ignore inconvenient facts, but inconvenience is a poor measure of relevance.
Thanks to Reagan, we've learned that basically any form of assistance given to anyone will simply be reduced into a non-taxable lump sum by skeptics of welfare programs so there's really no form of assistance that will not be characterized as "handing them a check from the govt" even though ironically simply giving people a check would be a lot cheaper for tax payers than all the hoops we're currently jumping through. It's nice to say govt assistance should be to help people not need it anymore, but unless there's a booming job market the reality is that a good chunk of people on welfare will always be on welfare and what do you do with them? Like drugs and poor people, unwed mothers are something that will always exist so what does it even matter if it's a problem? That seems like a real red herring. Problem or no problem it's a reality and you are either going to engage it or ignore it. On the bright side Libertarianism gets a leg up on Social Conservatives in my book because at least it'll legalize abortion before bitching at someone for being an unwed mother on welfare.
Prestor Jon wrote: Why are you so focused on the wealth gap? The wealth gap is a red herring, the difference between the highest and the lowest isn't important, what's important is the amount of wealth on the low end. If I waved a magic wand and doubled everyone's income instantly everyone would be better off, the lowest earners would see the most significant improvement in their lives, the wealthiest wouldn't see much change at all and the wealth gap would also double. If people on the low end can earn enough to achieve financial stability and help create opportunities to try to better themselves then that would be awesome and great for society regardless of the fact that people like Bill Gates and Lebron James would still be orders of magnitude wealthier than the people on the low end of the spectrum.
Key word: magic. People are focused on the wealth gap because, in practical terms, the (lack of) wealth on the low end is a direct result of that gap. The finite amount of wealth is being distributed incredibly unevenly, and opportunities for improvement on the low end are limited. And that distribution is a result of policies that encourage it, the magic doubling of income is never going to happen in the real world because the wealthiest few percent would rather increase their own paychecks and continue to pay their lowest employees poverty-level wages. So when you're talking about practical policy decisions that improve the situation for people on the low end of the wealth gap the means to doing so is reducing the wealth gap.
Also, the wealth gap concept is usually expressed in relative terms, not absolute. Doubling everyone's income would keep the wealth gap the same.
Nobody is arguing that low income unwed mothers shouldn't receive assistance but if low income unwed mothers are a problem for society than simply handing them a check from the govt every month isn't a solution to that problem. The goal of govt assistance should be to help people not need govt assistance anymore not to create govt dependencies that perpetuate generational cycles of a disadvantaged poverty stricken underclass.
So what do you do then? Conservative/libertarian proposals for preventing dependency on government assistance tend to be little more than "remove the assistance and people will magically improve their own situation because they have no choice" handwaving. At some point you have to accept the fact that, short of massive changes to society, some people are realistically never going to self-improve their way out of poverty. They lack the ability to do high-paying jobs (and there's a finite amount of those jobs anyway), and the jobs they are capable of doing pay poverty-level wages because our system allows employers to do it (and have taxpayers subsidize the cost of living of their employees). So you can either accept this fact and give them money, or leave them to suffer and die.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, many of these welfare programs exist for the benefit of the children, not the parents. It's nice to talk about "not being dependent on the government", but what do you do when the parents continue to fail to earn enough money to escape that dependence? You have two choices: you can either accept that you're going to have to give money to people for extended periods of time because it's the only way to protect their children, or you can punish the children for the sins of their parents and leave them to starve. Or, I guess, you can have a policy that anyone below a certain income level can have their children taken away and given to wealthier parents, but I think the problems there should be obvious.
No it just requires a reliable means to constrain government within set limitations of its authority.
The government isn't run by experts, they don't come up with the best policies or smartest solutions, they're just the people that won elections. Would you want Mitch McConnell, Chuck Shumer, Ted Cruz, Maxine Waters or Jeff Sessions to baby sit your kids? Balance your checkbook? Run the company that employs you? It's fething scary the people we elect and appoint to be in charge of everything and the less power they have over our lives the better off we all would be.
Neither are all companies run by experts. You could turn this whole argument around with all the failures in the open market. Do you want to the people who were responsible for Deepwater Horizon to get even more opportunities to create environmental disasters or the bankers who caused the 2008 recession to balance your checkbook? Statistically you don't want the people who run companies to actually run companies (most companies end in bankruptcy)?
It's fething scary to see all these people free to do all the bad stuff and we can't even vote them out of office. The less power they have over our lives the better off we all would be.
Why are you so focused on the wealth gap? The wealth gap is a red herring, the difference between the highest and the lowest isn't important, what's important is the amount of wealth on the low end. If I waved a magic wand and doubled everyone's income instantly everyone would be better off, the lowest earners would see the most significant improvement in their lives, the wealthiest wouldn't see much change at all and the wealth gap would also double. If people on the low end can earn enough to achieve financial stability and help create opportunities to try to better themselves then that would be awesome and great for society regardless of the fact that people like Bill Gates and Lebron James would still be orders of magnitude wealthier than the people on the low end of the spectrum.
If you doubled everyone's income, you'd devalue the currency. A person's wealth is based on what proportion of the world's available money they have, not the hardcount. That's why in post WW1 Germany, with hyperinflation making everyone's pay skyrocket, people just continuously got worse off.
Selym wrote: Well if you're going to believe in an ideal, it only makes sense to recognise that if you had your way everything would go to gak. I'm a Lib on this axis, but I am too practical to actually vote/argue that way. I like to see my authorities being monitored and questioned, but I find it to be foolish at best to take an Authoritarian measure like the UK's Surveillance State and reject it. It's just too useful, with too little meaningful impact on non-criminals.
Government accountability isn't inherently libertarian. It's one area (of many) that these kinds of single axis charts fall down. For instance, a person who believes in wide ranging government power, but insists on absolute transparency... are they more libertarian than someone who believes in a more hands off government, but is okay with a broad definition of state secrets?
Selym wrote: Well if you're going to believe in an ideal, it only makes sense to recognise that if you had your way everything would go to gak. I'm a Lib on this axis, but I am too practical to actually vote/argue that way. I like to see my authorities being monitored and questioned, but I find it to be foolish at best to take an Authoritarian measure like the UK's Surveillance State and reject it. It's just too useful, with too little meaningful impact on non-criminals.
Government accountability isn't inherently libertarian. It's one area (of many) that these kinds of single axis charts fall down. For instance, a person who believes in wide ranging government power, but insists on absolute transparency... are they more libertarian than someone who believes in a more hands off government, but is okay with a broad definition of state secrets?
Selym wrote: Well if you're going to believe in an ideal, it only makes sense to recognise that if you had your way everything would go to gak. I'm a Lib on this axis, but I am too practical to actually vote/argue that way. I like to see my authorities being monitored and questioned, but I find it to be foolish at best to take an Authoritarian measure like the UK's Surveillance State and reject it. It's just too useful, with too little meaningful impact on non-criminals.
Government accountability isn't inherently libertarian. It's one area (of many) that these kinds of single axis charts fall down. For instance, a person who believes in wide ranging government power, but insists on absolute transparency... are they more libertarian than someone who believes in a more hands off government, but is okay with a broad definition of state secrets?
This occurred to me earlier as well but in the context of CRA.
I don't really give a gak what people do with their lives, or in their heads. I might have an opinion to share about it but as far as government power does I don't think it belongs there. Go be racist if you want. Be gay. Be an absolute man whore. Really just... don't care. I don't like hate speech but I don't want to ban it. I don't like "at will" laws, but I'm not really interested in forcing employers to keep around employees they don't want either. All of that sounds awfully Libertarian socially (I'm definitely more authoritarian than libertarian on economics). I like government transparency and want more if it, and I've increasingly come to the opinion that if you have to keep something secret from the public then you probably shouldn't be doing whatever the feth it is you're doing (exceptions for military technology and intelligence gathering, but still kind of iffy there).
But then I'm all for banning people from refusing to serve someone on account of skin color and such not simply because of the social ramifications of how that can spiral out of control.
Is that more Libertarian, or Authoritarian? Just enough Authoritarianism that the Libertarianism doesn't collapse in on itself? Applied Authoritarian / Limited Libertarian? Horseshoe Effect? XD Don't know. It's kind of funky.
Verviedi wrote: So, I suppose that libertarianism can work, provided the people in our theoretical libertarian/anarchist society are all rational, reasonable people. Which isn't likely.
The problem, though, is that in order for libertarianism to work you start with a utopia that's already solved all our problems. How do you get a libertarian utopia? First start with utopia, then make it libertarian
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I don't endorse communism though. If you've worked hard, you deserve your perks.
As a nitpick, there is nothing in communism that states everyone has to earn the same amount. In Soviet Russia doctors did earn more than manual labourers. It's just the difference was nothing like as much as we see in the US/UK etc today, and the pay rates were set by government fiat, not market forces.
The big step between socialism and communism is really more about state control of business.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: Subsidizing something is not an effective way to get less of something.
Reducing everything down to economic equations decided by rational actors is an awful approach to a whole lot of policies. For your argument to make sense, you'd have to believe that when Cindy decides to let Johnny go bareback, that her decision isn't just a combination of hormones and teenage insecurity, but also includes assessing the risk of pregnancy and the impact that possible pregnancy would be expected to have on her life, with and without government support. It's ridiculous.
Humans don't base every decision on those kinds of material calculus. This is a large reason why despite increasing government support for young mothers, the rate of such pregnancies has been in decline for a long time now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: Why are you so focused on the wealth gap? The wealth gap is a red herring, the difference between the highest and the lowest isn't important, what's important is the amount of wealth on the low end. If I waved a magic wand and doubled everyone's income instantly everyone would be better off, the lowest earners would see the most significant improvement in their lives, the wealthiest wouldn't see much change at all and the wealth gap would also double.
The issue is that the argument that we shouldn't worry about income shares, but instead should just increase everyone's income has been at the centre of right wing policy on incomes since Reagan and Thatcher. And the problem is that it was a crock. The policies to lower top marginal tax rates and slash capital gains taxes didn't produce greater growth than we otherwise saw. Reality is that growth isn't impacted by ordinary levels of redistribution, and so reducing redistribution doesn't produce more growth.
Nobody is arguing that low income unwed mothers shouldn't receive assistance but if low income unwed mothers are a problem for society than simply handing them a check from the govt every month isn't a solution to that problem. The goal of govt assistance should be to help people not need govt assistance anymore not to create govt dependencies that perpetuate generational cycles of a disadvantaged poverty stricken underclass.
I agree that the goal should be to end poverty cycles and get people in to positions where they can earn a decent living for themselves. I disagree completely that government monthly cheques aren't a part of that solution. Having parents away from the house for excessive hours is known to damage a child's development. It also stops that parent studying, which prevents them getting a better job down the line.
Your assumption is also wrong in that it is only unwed, low income mothers who need assistance. Even when a mother and father are both there for the kid the hours that need to be worked to provide for that kid can be excessive. That reality drove a lot of the thinking behind the bi-partisan EITC.
LordofHats wrote: This occurred to me earlier as well but in the context of CRA.
I don't really give a gak what people do with their lives, or in their heads. I might have an opinion to share about it but as far as government power does I don't think it belongs there. Go be racist if you want. Be gay. Be an absolute man whore. Really just... don't care. I don't like hate speech but I don't want to ban it. I don't like "at will" laws, but I'm not really interested in forcing employers to keep around employees they don't want either. All of that sounds awfully Libertarian socially (I'm definitely more authoritarian than libertarian on economics). I like government transparency and want more if it, and I've increasingly come to the opinion that if you have to keep something secret from the public then you probably shouldn't be doing whatever the feth it is you're doing (exceptions for military technology and intelligence gathering, but still kind of iffy there).
But then I'm all for banning people from refusing to serve someone on account of skin color and such not simply because of the social ramifications of how that can spiral out of control.
Is that more Libertarian, or Authoritarian? Just enough Authoritarianism that the Libertarianism doesn't collapse in on itself? Applied Authoritarian / Limited Libertarian? Horseshoe Effect? XD Don't know. It's kind of funky.
I think you've captured the complexity of trying to apply these labels. I think at the end of the day these kinds of general categories laid out on an axis are a useful general tool, and they're okay for describing general tendencies within a population, but they're pretty hopeless at describing any individual's politics. Though asking people to self-identify can be a pretty interesting thing - it doesn't tell us too much about anyone's real political beliefs but it tells us a bit about how they like to see themselves.
I think you've captured the complexity of trying to apply these labels. I think at the end of the day these kinds of general categories laid out on an axis are a useful general tool, and they're okay for describing general tendencies within a population, but they're pretty hopeless at describing any individual's politics. Though asking people to self-identify can be a pretty interesting thing - it doesn't tell us too much about anyone's real political beliefs but it tells us a bit about how they like to see themselves.
This should probably be the first post on all of theses discussions!
it doesn't tell us too much about anyone's real political beliefs but it tells us a bit about how they like to see themselves
Perhaps unpacking how one wants to see oneself can clarify or bring consistency to one's political beliefs. Some years ago, this kind of came up in terms of Voter ID laws pushed by Republicans. Starting from a "libertarian" POV (in the context of our spectrum ITT), this amounts to using direct government power to tighten restrictions around a fundamental political right - i.e., a position one would expect libertarian-leaning people to reflexively oppose. It's not that a libertarian-leaning person could never accept a Voter ID law. But at the very least, the proponents of such a law should have to make a very convincing case that (a) voter fraud is a significant enough problem to meaningfully call into question the legitimacy of election results and (b) that the proposed law would actually mitigate the problem. To my mind, proponents of Voter ID laws have never been able to establish (a), rendering (b) moot. So, consistent with my own libertarian principles, I consider Voter ID laws not only unnecessary but furthermore morally suspect.
But of course a lot of folks who identify as libertarian support these laws. Are they authoritarians posing as libertarian? Or are they genuinely libertarian and would change their minds if the issue was laid out as above? Or are they genuinely libertarian but they believe points (a) and (b) are apparent/have been clearly established? Or maybe their analysis is that the right to vote is so fundamental that expanding government regulation to "protect" it, even from hypothetical fraud, is acceptable?
In any case, I think it is helpful to be able to identify Voter ID laws and similar policies as authoritarian impulses.
And it also depends on what lens you view it from. Living where I do, there are three large towns a half hour or so away from me or less that had large groups of illegals deported multiple times because of certain factories/processing plants that either turned a blind eye to such things, or didn't do their due diligence in that regard.
Take that, and take into consideration after a breeze through the last 6 months of Yahoo news stories there were at least a dozen stories about immigrants being deported and the heartbreaking family separation. Most, if not all, of the immigrants in this story had admitted to voting in elections. Hell, one lady from... Texas, I think? ...had been caught committing voter fraud over a decade ago and wound up getting pinched again, but deported this time.
Now, I'm no fan of government control, and consider myself very Libertarian as far as that goes. But you DO have an issue with a massive number of undocumented immigrants in the country who DO vote, committing fraud, and tightening our border isn't going to solve the entire problem. Finding them all takes time, and one of those controls is indeed voter ID laws. Said immigrant presents fake ID to vote, quick sweep of database throws red flags, gets to answer questions and potentially get uncovered and deported.
I really wish it were more cut and dry, but until we get away from our immigration problem I see ID laws as a necessary evil. For now.
A pure libertarian or anarco capitalism society can't work just because people with power normally like to use that power.
The State, even as many people want to put it as some kind of boogieman or big brother totally external to society... actually is suppose to represent the "Nation". The people that live into a country. The weak people band together for the greater good and have a "voice". Isn't a perfect system, of course.
But I doubt that the law of the jungle is better. "In a pure libertarian world the State isn't needed because everybody is free!" Yeah... and how exactly do you stop people from using that freedom to restrain the freedom of others? One can talk about social unions between peoples to defend themselves agains't others. But at the end we go back to mini-goverments.
Humans are a social and political animal. We need each other to work as a race. Thats why the sentiment of "Nation" is a natural result of history.
That and individuals and small bands of humans are terrible at large scale projects. Like road maintenance. And international shipping. You enjoy modernity? Someone's gotta make it work, and if that someone ain't you, it's gonna be your taxes.
Selym wrote: That and individuals and small bands of humans are terrible at large scale projects. Like road maintenance. And international shipping. You enjoy modernity? Someone's gotta make it work, and if that someone ain't you, it's gonna be your taxes.
I think thats the biggest problem. I'm sure that, with a more efficient goverment, people is more willing to pay higger taxes, because you see how they are used and the actual improvement in your life. Even if it doesn't affect directly to you. Maybe you are healty all of your life and you are lucky to don't go never to the hospital, but if you see how the hospitals have better equipement and service paid by your taxes, is much better than notice after notice of corruption, public funding being spend in irrelevant things, etc...
Neither is a purist totalitarian society desirable or perhaps even possible. Again, the point of this thread isn't the obvious conclusion that such extreme fantasies are unrealistic/terrible.
Manchu wrote: Neither is a purist totalitarian society desirable or perhaps even possible. Again, the point of this thread isn't the obvious conclusion that such extreme fantasies are unrealistic/terrible.
Well, I have meet some Anarcho-Capitalist that defend with very entusias that "unrealistic/terrible" extreme fantasy. The funny thing is how they call "communism" uthopyc at the same time.
Take that, and take into consideration after a breeze through the last 6 months of Yahoo news stories there were at least a dozen stories about immigrants being deported and the heartbreaking family separation. Most, if not all, of the immigrants in this story had admitted to voting in elections.
I'm calling BS on this claim as it doesn't back all the other data that came out. It would be major front page news if this were true.
Take that, and take into consideration after a breeze through the last 6 months of Yahoo news stories there were at least a dozen stories about immigrants being deported and the heartbreaking family separation. Most, if not all, of the immigrants in this story had admitted to voting in elections.
I'm calling BS on this claim as it doesn't back all the other data that came out. It would be major front page news if this were true.
Oh, it's front page. You just aren't reading the "right" sources.
Take that, and take into consideration after a breeze through the last 6 months of Yahoo news stories there were at least a dozen stories about immigrants being deported and the heartbreaking family separation. Most, if not all, of the immigrants in this story had admitted to voting in elections.
I'm calling BS on this claim as it doesn't back all the other data that came out. It would be major front page news if this were true.
Oh, it's front page. You just aren't reading the "right" sources.
Just Tony wrote: And it also depends on what lens you view it from. Living where I do, there are three large towns a half hour or so away from me or less that had large groups of illegals deported multiple times because of certain factories/processing plants that either turned a blind eye to such things, or didn't do their due diligence in that regard.
Take that, and take into consideration after a breeze through the last 6 months of Yahoo news stories there were at least a dozen stories about immigrants being deported and the heartbreaking family separation. Most, if not all, of the immigrants in this story had admitted to voting in elections. Hell, one lady from... Texas, I think? ...had been caught committing voter fraud over a decade ago and wound up getting pinched again, but deported this time.
Now, I'm no fan of government control, and consider myself very Libertarian as far as that goes. But you DO have an issue with a massive number of undocumented immigrants in the country who DO vote, committing fraud, and tightening our border isn't going to solve the entire problem. Finding them all takes time, and one of those controls is indeed voter ID laws. Said immigrant presents fake ID to vote, quick sweep of database throws red flags, gets to answer questions and potentially get uncovered and deported.
I really wish it were more cut and dry, but until we get away from our immigration problem I see ID laws as a necessary evil. For now.
Honestly, I agree here.
Fact is, you need a ID to do almost anything, whether that's using private or public services.
You need an id to rent a car, open a bank account, hell even buying alcohol, I don't think it's offensive to ask people to have id when participating In our democratic process.
Supertony51 wrote: I don't think it's offensive to ask people to have id when participating In our democratic process.
It's an expansion of government. Let's assume for the sake of argument that there is no evidence that the underlying problem exists. Do you still support the expansion of the government needed to address this alleged problem?
Galas wrote: Well, I have meet some Anarcho-Capitalist that defend with very entusias that "unrealistic/terrible" extreme fantasy.
It's not difficult to track down all kinds of loonies using the internet. The existence of a fringe doesn't make it less fringe.
Galas wrote: A pure libertarian or anarco capitalism society can't work just because people with power normally like to use that power.
The State, even as many people want to put it as some kind of boogieman or big brother totally external to society... actually is suppose to represent the "Nation". The people that live into a country. The weak people band together for the greater good and have a "voice". Isn't a perfect system, of course.
But I doubt that the law of the jungle is better. "In a pure libertarian world the State isn't needed because everybody is free!" Yeah... and how exactly do you stop people from using that freedom to restrain the freedom of others? One can talk about social unions between peoples to defend themselves agains't others. But at the end we go back to mini-goverments.
Humans are a social and political animal. We need each other to work as a race. Thats why the sentiment of "Nation" is a natural result of history.
I think you may be confusing certain aspects of libertarianism and anarchy.
Libertarians understand the need of a government to provide certain things, like common defense, police, fire department, roads..etc etc.
We also believe, that outside of providing for those things, the governments role in our personal lives, and in the economy, should be very limited.
Supertony51 wrote: I don't think it's offensive to ask people to have id when participating In our democratic process.
It's an expansion of government. Let's assume for the sake of argument that there is no evidence that the underlying problem exists. Do you still support the expansion of the government needed to address this alleged problem?
Galas wrote: Well, I have meet some Anarcho-Capitalist that defend with very entusias that "unrealistic/terrible" extreme fantasy.
It's not difficult to track down all kinds of loonies using the internet. The existence of a fringe doesn't make it less fringe.
I don't believe it's really an expansion of government, and even if it is, it's enforcing a policy that ensures the validity of our democratic process.
Provide the ID's at no cost to citizens, to preserve the integrity of the election, I don't see the injustice in this.
It's certainly an expansion - it expands government authority (authorizing it to do something it could not before), expands government logistically (systems will be have to be created to exercise the new authority), and self-evidently expands the cost of government. There will most definitely be a cost to citizens for the ID - it will just be paid in taxes rather than an individualized fee.
So again, the question is: do you support the expansion of government to address hypothetical problems?
I believe you have answered YES and that your rationale is that, even if there is no actual problem of voter fraud, even the purely hypothetical threat to legitimate elections requires government action.
I would characterize this line of thought as definitely authoritarian.
We also believe, that outside of providing for those things, the governments role in our personal lives, and in the economy, should be very limited.
^ This.
This is what allows me to look at things like Britain's mass surveillance, extreme amounts of litigation, and somewhat dodgy political system, and not think the state is collapsing around us. Just wandering around, you actually have to go out of your way to find trouble before you notice the state stepping in. Failure of government is failure for all, but the UK is consistently rated one of if not the best countries in the world for personal freedom.
Human Freedom 6/159 (tied with Australia and Canada)
Personal Freedom Score: 9.29/10
Slightly heavy-handed rule of law, and state-media relations aside, the UK has a perfect or near-perfect score in each category.
Meanwhile, the USA has a Human Freedom ranking of 23/159, and a Personal Freedom score of 8.79/10.
Mostly being dragged down by a even heavier-handed rule of law, and restrictions of freedom of movement (especially that of foreigners).
Bear in mind, this is in a pre-Brexit, pre-Trump dataset.
Provide the ID's at no cost to citizens, to preserve the integrity of the election, I don't see the injustice in this.
There is no such thing as "at no cost to citizens". The money has to come from somewhere, especially if there is no up-front charge. That somewhere will be taxes. Either from a rise, or from cuts. Or from borrowing, which will result in an increased national debt.
In Spain we have the "DNI" (Documento Nacional de Identidad) or National Identity Document. Everyone has to do it after they reach a certain age (12-14 years)
Is basically a "citizenship carnet" with your basic information and a number.
Is very very usefull, and you basically use it to everything in relation with the goverment but for other things, like making a Bank Account, receiving packages, etc, etc...
But at the same time is something that comes from the Franquism, so yes, it is a "authoritarian" thing. But as I said, nobody really has suffer anything from having it. The pros are much bigger that the cons.
You pay something like 20-30€ when you made it, and when you renew it that is something you have to do every 4 years when you are between 12 and 25 (Because it has a photo of you) every 10 years between 25 and I don't remember what, and after a certain age basically 20 years (But is more probably that you will just die before having the need to renovate it)
But at the same time is something that comes from the Franquism, so yes, it is a "authoritarian" thing. But as I said, nobody really has suffer anything from having it. The pros are much bigger that the cons.
Just reminded me of the PAYE system "Pay (taxes) As You Earn". So long as you are employed by a registered employer (other than yourself), your pay goes through a taxation system that calculates how much money you are earning and how suddenly a pay rise occurs, and deducts taxes accordingly. It's also part of a financial system that looks for unauthorised payments into your accounts, in an attempt to tackle fraud and money laundering.
Totally authoritarian, but actually increases personal freedom by not forcing everyone (including the overworked or incompetent) to have to do the darn thing manually. You can't ever fail to pay your taxes, because the system does it for you. And if it fails, it's the government's fault.
Manchu wrote: It's certainly an expansion - it expands government authority (authorizing it to do something it could not before), expands government logistically (systems will be have to be created to exercise the new authority), and self-evidently expands the cost of government. There will most definitely be a cost to citizens for the ID - it will just be paid in taxes rather than an individualized fee.
So again, the question is: do you support the expansion of government to address hypothetical problems?
I believe you have answered YES and that your rationale is that, even if there is no actual problem of voter fraud, even the purely hypothetical threat to legitimate elections requires government action.
I would characterize this line of thought as definitely authoritarian.
Once again, expansion or no, the government has a obligation to preserve the integrity of the election. That would be a basic obligation to ensure the proper function of the government on a most basic level.
We also believe, that outside of providing for those things, the governments role in our personal lives, and in the economy, should be very limited.
^ This.
This is what allows me to look at things like Britain's mass surveillance, extreme amounts of litigation, and somewhat dodgy political system, and not think the state is collapsing around us. Just wandering around, you actually have to go out of your way to find trouble before you notice the state stepping in. Failure of government is failure for all, but the UK is consistently rated one of if not the best countries in the world for personal freedom.
Human Freedom 6/159 (tied with Australia and Canada)
Personal Freedom Score: 9.29/10
Slightly heavy-handed rule of law, and state-media relations aside, the UK has a perfect or near-perfect score in each category.
Meanwhile, the USA has a Human Freedom ranking of 23/159, and a Personal Freedom score of 8.79/10.
Mostly being dragged down by a even heavier-handed rule of law, and restrictions of freedom of movement (especially that of foreigners).
Bear in mind, this is in a pre-Brexit, pre-Trump dataset.
Provide the ID's at no cost to citizens, to preserve the integrity of the election, I don't see the injustice in this.
There is no such thing as "at no cost to citizens". The money has to come from somewhere, especially if there is no up-front charge. That somewhere will be taxes. Either from a rise, or from cuts. Or from borrowing, which will result in an increased national debt.
I think the cost would be pretty nominal, basically paying to verify citizenship and issuing a laminated piece of plastic. given that the purpose would be to preserve the proper function of the democracy, I'd say it's a worthwhile investment.
I believe the government has a few obligations which it is completely responsible for, defense, common security, and basic infrastructure that we all use (roads) and common sense legislation (I.E. No dumping industrial waste into lakes).
Outside of that, I believe the role of the federal government should be limited.
Supertony51 wrote: Once again, expansion or no, the government has a obligation to preserve the integrity of the election. That would be a basic obligation to ensure the proper function of the government on a most basic level.
But if there actually is no demonstrable threat to the integrity of elections then you are left with expanding government authority/appealing to government power for the purely theoretical sake of the authority itself. That would be prototypical authoritarianism. Your politics on this issue, at least, are not only not libertarian but also pretty explicitly contrary to libertarianism.
Manchu wrote: It's certainly an expansion - it expands government authority (authorizing it to do something it could not before), expands government logistically (systems will be have to be created to exercise the new authority), and self-evidently expands the cost of government. There will most definitely be a cost to citizens for the ID - it will just be paid in taxes rather than an individualized fee.
So again, the question is: do you support the expansion of government to address hypothetical problems?
I believe you have answered YES and that your rationale is that, even if there is no actual problem of voter fraud, even the purely hypothetical threat to legitimate elections requires government action.
I would characterize this line of thought as definitely authoritarian.
Once again, expansion or no, the government has a obligation to preserve the integrity of the election. That would be a basic obligation to ensure the proper function of the government on a most basic level.
... adding to this thread. Another way to look at this is the Government's purpose. That is to protect our rights.
By and large (not including SC fiasco...whoa) voter ID laws are more than just "hey... show some IDs to pickup your ballot". They also direct the state's Secretary of State to perform periodic review of the voter rolls.
Manchu wrote: It's certainly an expansion - it expands government authority (authorizing it to do something it could not before), expands government logistically (systems will be have to be created to exercise the new authority), and self-evidently expands the cost of government. There will most definitely be a cost to citizens for the ID - it will just be paid in taxes rather than an individualized fee.
So again, the question is: do you support the expansion of government to address hypothetical problems?
I believe you have answered YES and that your rationale is that, even if there is no actual problem of voter fraud, even the purely hypothetical threat to legitimate elections requires government action.
I would characterize this line of thought as definitely authoritarian.
Once again, expansion or no, the government has a obligation to preserve the integrity of the election. That would be a basic obligation to ensure the proper function of the government on a most basic level.
... adding to this thread. Another way to look at this is the Government's purpose. That is to protect our rights.
By and large (not including SC fiasco...whoa) voter ID laws are more than just "hey... show some IDs to pickup your ballot". They also direct the state's Secretary of State to perform periodic review of the voter rolls.
Exactly, preserving the integrity of the election also preserves the right to vote.
Galas wrote: Wait. Can people vote in USA without an identification document?
I would guess they'd need a voter card that gets posted to them. I have not looked into this. Here in the UK, every registered voter gets a piece of card with some basic details, instructions on when and where to vote, and anything else the local council thinks is relevant. To vote, you must hand in your card.
Galas wrote: Wait. Can people vote in USA without an identification document?
I would guess they'd need a voter card that gets posted to them. I have not looked into this. Here in the UK, every registered voter gets a piece of card with some basic details, instructions on when and where to vote, and anything else the local council thinks is relevant. To vote, you must hand in your card.
We had that too but at the moment to actually vote in the box you need to present your DNI and they check if you have already voted.
You walk into the polling place assigned to the residence you registered under. You tell your name to a volunteer who has a book of people registered there. Then you sign your name in the book so you can't vote twice. Then you get to go vote.
Now, to have your name in the book in the first place you have to have confirmed your place of residence with the election authority, through a process that can be sometimes very involved depending on what state you live in. That's when they verify who you are and that you are not registered in a different district.
Oh yeah, there are also other volunteers from the parties and civic groups who may challenge your registration. It doesn't stop you from voting, they just put your anonymous ballot in a separate pile. That way if multiple people try to vote under the same registration at the same place they can resolve the problem later.
Manchu wrote: Perhaps unpacking how one wants to see oneself can clarify or bring consistency to one's political beliefs.
The problem, I think, is that very few people start with base principles or a real understanding of the values of their political position, and build from there up to preferred policies. Instead people start with identity, attach themselves to the candidate who champions their identity through a mostly emotional process, and then finds a way to agree with all (or enough) of their policies.
Democracy for Realists lays out a very good case for this unfortunate reality.
It's worth strongly considering. There are indications that are credited in professional electoral politics that a person with 5% of available information on candidate's positions and background will vote the same way as if they have 95% of that information.
It's very possible to influence someone's vote, but it's not a question of getting people to read more or a greater depth of news.
Nobody said elections were meant to be about sound policy making.
Galas wrote: I think thats the biggest problem. I'm sure that, with a more efficient goverment, people is more willing to pay higger taxes, because you see how they are used and the actual improvement in your life. Even if it doesn't affect directly to you.
Even with efficient government people still resent paying taxes, and don't realise the scope of services and facilities government provides. I mean, how would a person even know if their government was efficient? Do you know what the road you drove to work on cost to build? Do you know what the road should have cost, if it was handled with absolute efficiency?
I'm not saying the roads were done efficiently, I don't know. The problem is no-one else does either. People just take services and infrastructure for granted, but remain resentful about the taxes they pay.
Just Tony wrote: And it also depends on what lens you view it from. Living where I do, there are three large towns a half hour or so away from me or less that had large groups of illegals deported multiple times because of certain factories/processing plants that either turned a blind eye to such things, or didn't do their due diligence in that regard.
Take that, and take into consideration after a breeze through the last 6 months of Yahoo news stories there were at least a dozen stories about immigrants being deported and the heartbreaking family separation. Most, if not all, of the immigrants in this story had admitted to voting in elections. Hell, one lady from... Texas, I think? ...had been caught committing voter fraud over a decade ago and wound up getting pinched again, but deported this time.
Now, I'm no fan of government control, and consider myself very Libertarian as far as that goes. But you DO have an issue with a massive number of undocumented immigrants in the country who DO vote...
I definitely believe this is a thing that really happens: that illegal aliens commit totally provable fraud, which could have them jailed and then deported, for absolutely no tangible gain. Sure.
skyth wrote: I'm calling BS on this claim as it doesn't back all the other data that came out. It would be major front page news if this were true.
Thing is, never mind that there's no evidence for this, even as a piece of fiction it makes absolutely no sense. Can anyone even imagine a slightly plausible process in which people who just got caught working illegally would just start volunteering that they also committed electoral fraud? And if illegal immigrants started making such incredible admissions somehow the Trump administration does nothing to publicise this, despite being desperate to make any kind of case that illegal voting is common?
The whole thing is not just unproven, it's plainly absurd. But Just Tony will hear it and buy into it entirely, because he wants to believe. Because it lets him continue to think of himself as a libertarian while supporting voter ID laws that will make it harder for many people to lawfully vote.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: Wait. Can people vote in USA without an identification document?
You can in Australia as well. You just go up to the ballot, say your name and address and they tick you off.
This is no problem because cheating through electoral fraud is a horrible idea. You would need a vast number of people with a very sophisticated operation to make the slightest dent in a handful of marginal seats. If some piece of law is that important to you it's cheaper and way safer to just donate money to both parties to make sure the law you want is written.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
pelicaniforce wrote: It's worth strongly considering. There are indications that are credited in professional electoral politics that a person with 5% of available information on candidate's positions and background will vote the same way as if they have 95% of that information.
It's very possible to influence someone's vote, but it's not a question of getting people to read more or a greater depth of news.
Nobody said elections were meant to be about sound policy making.
Yep. I guess the idea though was the for the most part while the system was messy and full of lots of stupid but the stupid mostly cancelled out other stupid and left mostly sensible, if self-interested voters to decide an election. But a couple of high profile results in the last couple of years have shown that we can't even trust elections to fall in favour of people's own narrow interests. It turns out that appeals to emotion and (false) affinity are more important than platforms that lay out a coherent way to improve people's lives.
Democracy is essential, of course, but it's far more dependent on the goodwill of the political class than we realised.
I can't tell if you think democracy is doomed to produce dicatators or dicatatorship is ultimately preferable to deomcracy.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also I cannot figure out how supporting Voter ID laws makes anyone feel more libertarian and I say that as someone who leans toward libertariansism (that is, away from authoritarianism). As I have tried to lay out ITT, the Voter ID law agenda in the States is clearly, fundamentally authoritarian.
One way to look at it would be to ask: What is the negative impact?
Examining ID Laws under the assumption that the threat is not evident is a quick way to get the answer that the proponents are Authoritarian (or, at least, more Authoritarian that the oppositon).
Selym wrote: One way to look at it would be to ask: What is the negative impact?
Examining ID Laws under the assumption that the threat is not evident is a quick way to get the answer that the proponents are Authoritarian (or, at least, more Authoritarian that the oppositon).
Other than the fact that facts back up that assumption
Supertony51 wrote: Once again, expansion or no, the government has a obligation to preserve the integrity of the election. That would be a basic obligation to ensure the proper function of the government on a most basic level.
But if there actually is no demonstrable threat to the integrity of elections then you are left with expanding government authority/appealing to government power for the purely theoretical sake of the authority itself. That would be prototypical authoritarianism. Your politics on this issue, at least, are not only not libertarian but also pretty explicitly contrary to libertarianism.
Manchu wrote:But again we stipulated for the sake of argument that the integrity of the election is under no demonstrable threat.
No, it HAS happened. So even if someone is found ONCE by the Keystone Kops here in the US, can you definitely say that there are NO people who are getting away with it.? That is a pretty big leap of faith, one that I can't make given my own personal experiences.
Ouze wrote:
Just Tony wrote: And it also depends on what lens you view it from. Living where I do, there are three large towns a half hour or so away from me or less that had large groups of illegals deported multiple times because of certain factories/processing plants that either turned a blind eye to such things, or didn't do their due diligence in that regard.
Take that, and take into consideration after a breeze through the last 6 months of Yahoo news stories there were at least a dozen stories about immigrants being deported and the heartbreaking family separation. Most, if not all, of the immigrants in this story had admitted to voting in elections. Hell, one lady from... Texas, I think? ...had been caught committing voter fraud over a decade ago and wound up getting pinched again, but deported this time.
Now, I'm no fan of government control, and consider myself very Libertarian as far as that goes. But you DO have an issue with a massive number of undocumented immigrants in the country who DO vote...
I definitely believe this is a thing that really happens: that illegal aliens commit totally provable fraud, which could have them jailed and then deported, for absolutely no tangible gain. Sure.
No tangible gain? Any attempt to get people into office who have an amnesty viewpoint is tangible gain for ANY illegal in this country.
Oh, and three seconds of thinking of the best way to word the question and typing it into google:
Amazing. So sort through, I'm sure none of these sources will be "valid" in your eyes... (damn, can't find an eyeroll smiley. At least not one that's easily discernible...)
Amazing. So sort through, I'm sure none of these sources will be "valid" in your eyes... (damn, can't find an eyeroll smiley. At least not one that's easily discernible...)
First sentences of the first link;
Despite repeated statements by Republican political leaders that American elections are rife with illegal voting, credible reports of fraud have been hard to find and convictions rarer still.
In an article about a resident who can barely read and didn't realize she wasn't born here cause she arrived as an infant. What stellar example of the millions of illegals who must be doing it on purpose. If only you spent 3 seconds time actually reading.
Mr. Birdsall said Mr. Paxton’s office had been prepared to dismiss all charges against Ms. Ortega if she agreed to testify on voting procedures before the Texas Legislature.
Wow, that may well be the first actually sleazy thing that has come up in this thread. "Confirm what we want to believe or we'll slam you with the harshest penalties we can."
Lets see, second article on the list. Welp here's a Peruvian who voted twice illegally, and got caught. The next one is about the same woman in the first article, oh this is actually kind of funny;
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton – for whom Ortega voted in 2014 – assisted in the prosecution.
Like actually funny funny XD
Fourth link is the same Peruvian woman. Fifth link is just about general deportation's being down under Trump while arrests are up, doesn't even have the word "vote" in its text. Then its the Peruvian woman gain. I suspected I'd quickly find lots of bull in the next one but to humor you I read it anyway until I got to this part;
For example, in East Chicago, Indiana, a city with 30,000 residents, voting fraud was so systemic in 2003 that the State Supreme Court ordered a new election with heightened verification.
So I checked on it! Good news is that this is an accurate statement. Bad news is that it involves no illegals voting so evidence for voter fraud yes, but evidence for illegals voting in massive numbers no. It's a local election that was swung by 123 votes, a pretty narrow margin for a guy who cheated to get the win, and he got caught, and a new election was ordered. looks like the system is working just fine, why complicate it further? Besides its Chicago. Is anyone here really surprised? The police chief was running his own personal black site for pete's sake it's widely recognized as one of the most corruption ridden cities in one of the most corruption ridden states in the country. I think voter fraud is but one of many problems that needs cleaning up there. For anyone who wants a follow up on this harrowing tale, Pabey who demanded the initial recounts against fraudulent winner Robert Pastrick won the recount and then got removed from office for stealing government funds! Just nothing but winners in that scenario hot damn... But no evidence of illegals voting here. Looks like fradulant ballots were cast by city employees using dead names and addresses. Sure is a good thing we rolled up a whole bunch of checks for that stuff since 2003 eh?
Okay Tony back to you! Next link is about the Peruvian woman again. Then there's another article about the first woman. After that's its a CBS article I remember reading when it first came out. Hilarious story. Illegal guy's family, who can legally vote, vote for Donald Trump and are then shocked when the guy who had spent the last few years working with ICE to obtain legal status gets arrested and subsequently deported. Like seriously, did you think Trump was fething joking when he was talking about cracking down on illegal immigration?
Welp I'm at the end of page one and its been like, 30 minutes. The second page actually doesn't mention any new cases just looking at the search page itself. Do I have to keep going or can we just admit now that maybe there isn't anywhere near as much evidence of this as you seem to have convinced yourself? I'm pretty sure I've already managed to spend more time on this than you just today XD
Whether or not undocumented immigrants are actually illegally voting in US elections, much less at what frequency or why, is beyond the scope of this particular discussion.
Just Tony, what you missed is that we are making an assumption that (basically) this doesn't happen for the sake of argument, to determine whether posters support Voter ID laws regardless of whether elections are actually threatened.
Selym, a basic negative impact of passing Voter ID laws - from a libertarian POV - is that it's an expansion of government. From a libertarian POV, the crucial question is, do these laws address an actual problem effectively enough to overcome that? If we assume yes, then I could see libertarian-leaning people supporting Voter ID laws. But, again, if we assume no then it's very difficult to see how supporting these laws is anything but authoritarian.
Galas wrote: I think thats the biggest problem. I'm sure that, with a more efficient goverment, people is more willing to pay higger taxes, because you see how they are used and the actual improvement in your life. Even if it doesn't affect directly to you.
Even with efficient government people still resent paying taxes, and don't realise the scope of services and facilities government provides. I mean, how would a person even know if their government was efficient? Do you know what the road you drove to work on cost to build? Do you know what the road should have cost, if it was handled with absolute efficiency?
I'm not saying the roads were done efficiently, I don't know. The problem is no-one else does either. People just take services and infrastructure for granted, but remain resentful about the taxes they pay.
The average person already knows that the govt is inefficient, that's why they resent paying taxes. The federal govt collects trillions of dollars in taxes every year and the states and municipalities levy their share of taxes too and yet we still have a grossly neglected infrastructure. We have neglected roads and bridges, an outdated archaic power grid, outmoded public education system, etc. so where does all the money go? We pay a whole slew of local taxes to cover the roads/bridges and the pay federal income tax to cover the federal roads/bridges but they're still underfunded so why isn't the govt prioritizing spending to fix them? Well, you know, politics, :shrug:. If the govt can't address basic needs in a common sense manner then yeah people are going to resent being forced to give them money to address the needs that they're ignoring.
In my state to finance construction of new school and increase education funding the state legislature decided to legalize a state lottery. We never had any legalized gambling before but the state gave itself an exception to have a lottery so they could raise money for a very necessary common good in an incredibly inefficient and unfair manner. The state spends millions of dollars to run and advertise the lottery so that 25% of money used to buy lottery tickets can be spent on education but 63% of that 25% is spent on "non instructional support personnel" which means a majority of the small amount of money that goes to fund education is being spent on people who don't actually educate anyone and all the money that goes into public education for the public good is raised only from people who choose to buy lottery tickets. That's just stupid. If we need more money for public school in our state then just take another $10 from every person who files state income tax returns and send it directly to education spending, eliminate the millions of dollars of overhead and stop having the state spend money on advertising to convince people to engage in an activity that has to have PSAs attached at the end about how to get help if you find yourself dangerously addicted to the dangerously addictive activity the state is trying to convince you to participate in.
In a similar vein every time there is a budget crunch the services that the govt chooses to cut are always the ones that seem rather important and are the most likely to convince people to agree to the higher taxes. Closing libraries, cutting arts programs at schools, reducing police services etc. because apparently every other cent spent in the budget is vitally important so there's literally no other way to reduce costs. Year after year, regardless of which party or politicians are in charge govt continually shows us that they do a terribly job of prioritizing spending tax revenue in a manner that does the most good for the public so why should people be eager to give them more money?
No it just requires a reliable means to constrain government within set limitations of its authority.
The government isn't run by experts, they don't come up with the best policies or smartest solutions, they're just the people that won elections. Would you want Mitch McConnell, Chuck Shumer, Ted Cruz, Maxine Waters or Jeff Sessions to baby sit your kids? Balance your checkbook? Run the company that employs you? It's fething scary the people we elect and appoint to be in charge of everything and the less power they have over our lives the better off we all would be.
Neither are all companies run by experts. You could turn this whole argument around with all the failures in the open market. Do you want to the people who were responsible for Deepwater Horizon to get even more opportunities to create environmental disasters or the bankers who caused the 2008 recession to balance your checkbook? Statistically you don't want the people who run companies to actually run companies (most companies end in bankruptcy)?
It's fething scary to see all these people free to do all the bad stuff and we can't even vote them out of office. The less power they have over our lives the better off we all would be.
It's great that there are failures in the free market, that's what generates innovation and better service. If you run your business badly you go out of business, if you govern badly you usually get to keep governing. Financial companies and car manufacturers mismanaged themselves into bankruptcy but instead of letting them fail the govt bailed them out. Congress had had a terrible approval rating for years and no matter what party is in power or what politicians are in office every election the majority of incumbents win re-election. What percentage of politicians get impeached or recalled? It's a much smaller percentage than the percentage of business that fail but we have no shortage of outrage inducing conduct and legislation done by politicians. I can pick and choose what companies I patronize with my business but I can't pick and choose what laws apply to me no matter how horrible and unjust I might think they are. At least the companies in the private sector have to follow the laws and regulations just like everybody else whereas the govt gets to make up whatever rules they feel necessary. The politicians didn't have to repeal regulations that helped create the financial crisis in 2008 but they chose to do so, businesses couldn't have done that on their own. The govt decided that my 4th amendment rights don't apply if I want to get on an airplane, not the airlines.
Why are you so focused on the wealth gap? The wealth gap is a red herring, the difference between the highest and the lowest isn't important, what's important is the amount of wealth on the low end. If I waved a magic wand and doubled everyone's income instantly everyone would be better off, the lowest earners would see the most significant improvement in their lives, the wealthiest wouldn't see much change at all and the wealth gap would also double. If people on the low end can earn enough to achieve financial stability and help create opportunities to try to better themselves then that would be awesome and great for society regardless of the fact that people like Bill Gates and Lebron James would still be orders of magnitude wealthier than the people on the low end of the spectrum.
If you doubled everyone's income, you'd devalue the currency. A person's wealth is based on what proportion of the world's available money they have, not the hardcount. That's why in post WW1 Germany, with hyperinflation making everyone's pay skyrocket, people just continuously got worse off.
I can't think of a single instance in which wage increases triggered hyperinflation. The majority of instances of hyperinflation have resulted from govts running huge deficits financed by money creation. A govt running up a 10 trillion dollar deficit and then printing up 0 trillion dollars to pay it off is different from employers deciding that a job whose work was worth $8 is now worth $16 isn't going to going to require the national mint to print out billions of new notes every month. Increasing wages, especially on the lower end of the income spectrum to put more employed people closer to the current median average income isn't going to trigger hyperinflation but if I ever do come into possession of a magic wand that enables to me double everyone's income overnight I will devote more time to researching your concern before I make it happen.
Why are you so focused on the wealth gap? The wealth gap is a red herring, the difference between the highest and the lowest isn't important, what's important is the amount of wealth on the low end. If I waved a magic wand and doubled everyone's income instantly everyone would be better off, the lowest earners would see the most significant improvement in their lives, the wealthiest wouldn't see much change at all and the wealth gap would also double. If people on the low end can earn enough to achieve financial stability and help create opportunities to try to better themselves then that would be awesome and great for society regardless of the fact that people like Bill Gates and Lebron James would still be orders of magnitude wealthier than the people on the low end of the spectrum.
If you doubled everyone's income, you'd devalue the currency. A person's wealth is based on what proportion of the world's available money they have, not the hardcount. That's why in post WW1 Germany, with hyperinflation making everyone's pay skyrocket, people just continuously got worse off.
I can't think of a single instance in which wage increases triggered hyperinflation. The majority of instances of hyperinflation have resulted from govts running huge deficits financed by money creation. A govt running up a 10 trillion dollar deficit and then printing up 0 trillion dollars to pay it off is different from employers deciding that a job whose work was worth $8 is now worth $16 isn't going to going to require the national mint to print out billions of new notes every month. Increasing wages, especially on the lower end of the income spectrum to put more employed people closer to the current median average income isn't going to trigger hyperinflation but if I ever do come into possession of a magic wand that enables to me double everyone's income overnight I will devote more time to researching your concern before I make it happen.
That's interesting, but not a set of cause and effect that I was referring to. the Wiemar Republic was just an easy example of what happens when there is more money in the system. What it appeared you meant could be abstracted by the following:
The effect would not actually increase the value given to a person's work, because the total money in the system went up. As money is as subject to supply and demand as any other commodity, the money would devalue. As you will note, nobody got an increased proportion of the money in the set, and thus nobody was made better off. Extend it forever, and you can end up with hyperinflation. Or other counries start asking where you got the money from...
The point is, whatever measures you take to improve the value given to someone, or to reduce the wealth inequality, you should be aiming to increase the proportion of available wealth that a person has. Rather than just focus on raw numbers.
Manchu wrote: I can't tell if you think democracy is doomed to produce dicatators or dicatatorship is ultimately preferable to deomcracy.
Neither. The point really is that working democracy is more than just the ballot, as the ballot is essential but flawed when it lacks safeguards. To this end we need strong parties built around clear values of public good, to prevent the party falling in behind demagogues, and when that fails we need strong institutions to stand against any demagogues who do come to power..
Also I cannot figure out how supporting Voter ID laws makes anyone feel more libertarian and I say that as someone who leans toward libertariansism (that is, away from authoritarianism). As I have tried to lay out ITT, the Voter ID law agenda in the
States is clearly, fundamentally authoritarian.
You made this case really well. But people who don't want to hear it don't hear it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: The average person already knows that the govt is inefficient, that's why they resent paying taxes.
But that's the point. It isn't known. It is commonly believed. These are very different things. A majority of people stopped on the street get confused between a billion and a trillion. You want to tell me those same people spend a night every year going over state and federal budgets to assess the efficiency of government spending. Come on.
In a similar vein every time there is a budget crunch the services that the govt chooses to cut are always the ones that seem rather important and are the most likely to convince people to agree to the higher taxes. Closing libraries, cutting arts programs at schools, reducing police services etc. because apparently every other cent spent in the budget is vitally important so there's literally no other way to reduce costs. Year after year, regardless of which party or politicians are in charge govt continually shows us that they do a terribly job of prioritizing spending tax revenue in a manner that does the most good for the public so why should people be eager to give them more money?
Thing is, where tax dollars are spent is never going to exactly suit your own personal preferences. That's just life. So when tax cuts come in you might find they cut the things you like, and keep things you don't care about. That's also life.
But the plain reality is that the US is one of the lowest taxed countries in the world. You sometimes see claims to the opposite of that, but those people are lying to you, by using misleading stats like corporate tax rates, and so ignoring deductions, exemptions, discounted rates etc. But if you take the total tax base divided by total GDP, the US is at 26%. The OECD average is 34%.
When you tax less, you end up offering fewer services, maintaining less infrastructure etc. That's just the realities of maths. If you have a problem with the services offered, the only way to do that is to increase taxes. Now when those taxes are used o increased spending some of that spending will be on things you personally think are stupid, and yeah some of the money will be wasted. The question is whether the juice is worth the squeeze, whether you get enough good and worthwhile benefits.
That is the important question. Unfortunately almost no-one in the electorate is actually equipped to answer that question - hardly any of them even realise that's the question.
Just Tony wrote: And it also depends on what lens you view it from. Living where I do, there are three large towns a half hour or so away from me or less that had large groups of illegals deported multiple times because of certain factories/processing plants that either turned a blind eye to such things, or didn't do their due diligence in that regard.
Take that, and take into consideration after a breeze through the last 6 months of Yahoo news stories there were at least a dozen stories about immigrants being deported and the heartbreaking family separation. Most, if not all, of the immigrants in this story had admitted to voting in elections. Hell, one lady from... Texas, I think? ...had been caught committing voter fraud over a decade ago and wound up getting pinched again, but deported this time.
Now, I'm no fan of government control, and consider myself very Libertarian as far as that goes. But you DO have an issue with a massive number of undocumented immigrants in the country who DO vote, committing fraud, and tightening our border isn't going to solve the entire problem. Finding them all takes time, and one of those controls is indeed voter ID laws. Said immigrant presents fake ID to vote, quick sweep of database throws red flags, gets to answer questions and potentially get uncovered and deported.
I really wish it were more cut and dry, but until we get away from our immigration problem I see ID laws as a necessary evil. For now.
Your anecdotes contradict the data. You also make the assumption that immigration is a problem.
Just Tony wrote: No, it HAS happened. So even if someone is found ONCE by the Keystone Kops here in the US, can you definitely say that there are NO people who are getting away with it.?
First, now you're simultaneously moving the goalposts (to a new, different argument), and raising a strawman: well done. To wit, I didn't say no one has ever done it, and no one else in this thread did other then the argument you invented. I know at least one woman in Iowa voted twice - specifically, she voted twice for Trump.
The actual argument is that illegal aliens and in fact any in-person voting fraud statistically does not exist. There are a handful of cases now and then, but there are 130 million votes cast in this country. If you look at ever case of in-person voter fraud, and you multiply that by about 5, you get .001% of the vote.
Forcing people to get ID's will provably result in a few percentage points of actual lawful voters not being able to vote for a variety of reasons, so you're essentially creating an actual problem to solve a virtually non-existent one, and expanding the government at taxpayer cost to do so.
This is a pretty bizarre stance for a libertarian, but it does make sense for a social conservative, which in my experience is what most libertarians actually are.
Why are you so focused on the wealth gap? The wealth gap is a red herring, the difference between the highest and the lowest isn't important, what's important is the amount of wealth on the low end. If I waved a magic wand and doubled everyone's income instantly everyone would be better off, the lowest earners would see the most significant improvement in their lives, the wealthiest wouldn't see much change at all and the wealth gap would also double. If people on the low end can earn enough to achieve financial stability and help create opportunities to try to better themselves then that would be awesome and great for society regardless of the fact that people like Bill Gates and Lebron James would still be orders of magnitude wealthier than the people on the low end of the spectrum.
If you doubled everyone's income, you'd devalue the currency. A person's wealth is based on what proportion of the world's available money they have, not the hardcount. That's why in post WW1 Germany, with hyperinflation making everyone's pay skyrocket, people just continuously got worse off.
I can't think of a single instance in which wage increases triggered hyperinflation. The majority of instances of hyperinflation have resulted from govts running huge deficits financed by money creation. A govt running up a 10 trillion dollar deficit and then printing up 0 trillion dollars to pay it off is different from employers deciding that a job whose work was worth $8 is now worth $16 isn't going to going to require the national mint to print out billions of new notes every month. Increasing wages, especially on the lower end of the income spectrum to put more employed people closer to the current median average income isn't going to trigger hyperinflation but if I ever do come into possession of a magic wand that enables to me double everyone's income overnight I will devote more time to researching your concern before I make it happen.
That's interesting, but not a set of cause and effect that I was referring to. the Wiemar Republic was just an easy example of what happens when there is more money in the system. What it appeared you meant could be abstracted by the following:
The effect would not actually increase the value given to a person's work, because the total money in the system went up. As money is as subject to supply and demand as any other commodity, the money would devalue. As you will note, nobody got an increased proportion of the money in the set, and thus nobody was made better off. Extend it forever, and you can end up with hyperinflation. Or other counries start asking where you got the money from...
The point is, whatever measures you take to improve the value given to someone, or to reduce the wealth inequality, you should be aiming to increase the proportion of available wealth that a person has. Rather than just focus on raw numbers.
Setting aside the magic wand wage doubling scenario, the point I wanted to make was that wealth is not a zero sum gain, having other people earn much more than you doesn't prevent you from earning more. You can improve your earning power without having to take earnings away from anyone else. You can always create more wealth or add more value we're not starting with a finite amount that we have to divvy up because they'll never be any more. You can increase your value as a worker and increase your earning power without having to take someone else's earning power away and wages away and redistribute them to you. The economy can grow, wages can grow every year without ever triggering hyperinflation or drastically shrinking the wealth gap. It doesn't matter if the super rich get even super richer if the workers at the low end see an earnings increase that boosts them from struggling to comfortable stability.
If the problem is that too many jobs in the private sector don't pay enough or the private sector in general isn't seeing enough wage growth then the answer to motivate the private sector to pay more and assist the workers in increasing the value of the labor. Having the govt redistribute wealth from the top end to the low end doesn't actually cause any changes to the wages of the low earning workers or make those workers more valuable and it removes any pressure on the private sector to increase wages because the govt is artificially increasing earnings for the workers through redistributive subsidies. If you have a crappy low paying job and are struggling to find a better one then yes getting additional money from the govt makes the situation better than not getting additional money from the govt but it still leaves you working a crappy low paying job and struggling to find a better one. Govt redistribution is never going to recreate the economy of the past wherein wages were higher and purchasing power was greater because that economy was built on a majority of the workforce having good paying jobs and govt subsidizing low paying private sector jobs isn't going to lead to increased wages.
Setting aside the magic wand wage doubling scenario, the point I wanted to make was that wealth is not a zero sum gain, having other people earn much more than you doesn't prevent you from earning more. You can improve your earning power without having to take earnings away from anyone else. You can always create more wealth or add more value we're not starting with a finite amount that we have to divvy up because they'll never be any more. You can increase your value as a worker and increase your earning power without having to take someone else's earning power away and wages away and redistribute them to you. The economy can grow, wages can grow every year without ever triggering hyperinflation or drastically shrinking the wealth gap. It doesn't matter if the super rich get even super richer if the workers at the low end see an earnings increase that boosts them from struggling to comfortable stability.
If the problem is that too many jobs in the private sector don't pay enough or the private sector in general isn't seeing enough wage growth then the answer to motivate the private sector to pay more and assist the workers in increasing the value of the labor. Having the govt redistribute wealth from the top end to the low end doesn't actually cause any changes to the wages of the low earning workers or make those workers more valuable and it removes any pressure on the private sector to increase wages because the govt is artificially increasing earnings for the workers through redistributive subsidies. If you have a crappy low paying job and are struggling to find a better one then yes getting additional money from the govt makes the situation better than not getting additional money from the govt but it still leaves you working a crappy low paying job and struggling to find a better one. Govt redistribution is never going to recreate the economy of the past wherein wages were higher and purchasing power was greater because that economy was built on a majority of the workforce having good paying jobs and govt subsidizing low paying private sector jobs isn't going to lead to increased wages.
I had a counter argument, but I realised that the "finite earth" argument is not actually what we're discussing. Capitalist economies do have a tendency to grow, but we will eventually reach an upper limit. That limit, however, is not actually something I can quantify, so I cannot use the argument.
I have no problem with doing things like upping the minimum wage, and using sensible regulations to stop prices from going out of control, but increasing *everyone's* pay will also mean the pay of the people at the top. That will require either the extraction of wealthy person's stored funds, a sudden increase in the economy,, or printing more money. The latter of which will most likely do as I predicted, the former is both authoritarian and unlikely, and the economy is not a reliable factor.
I love the bringing up the myth that if you somehow (magically) become more productive, you somehow earn significantly more money. That doesn't bear fruit in the real world where worker productivity has skyrocketed but wages have remained flat.
The economic system where a person gains more money as it becomes more productive or his work has more value is called comunism.
In capitalism, you gain what your boss offers you. Of course you can be your own boss, or you can work in a job where you are paid X money for the thing you do, like being an agricultor. But the mass of employers are proletarians and as that they earn what they boss whant them to earn.
You can be fired if you are inproductive, thats true. But your production isn't, generally, directly related to your payment.
skyth wrote: Goverment is seen to be inefficient for two big reasons, both related to it being axiomatic that 'government is bad' to certain parties.
First, it keeps on being repeated that government is inefficient so that people believe it.
Second, the people for whom government being bad is axiomatic are part of the government and have an incentive to make government ineffivient.
Government has always been inefficient because government is constantly seeking to grow bigger, do more and spend more in ways and for purposes for which it is ill designed. As government grows to be bigger to implement more programs to try to help more people it becomes more inefficient because helping people on an individual level is always going to be an extremely inefficient use of government. The amount of overhead involved in the government just collecting the revenue then determining where it will be spent, then having the designated program spend the funds is inefficient without even getting into the myriad issues involved with each separate phase of the process. This has always been the case, regardless of what party was in control of what branch of government or which politicians were members of congress. We spend a large portion of the federal budget on defense and defense spending has never been an efficient process because defense spending has been directed by what congress wants not by strict military necessity or pragmatism. Government isn't inefficient because Republicans are sabotaging it to be inefficient just to lend credence to a Party talking point. There is no pressure on government to increase efficiency only pressure for spending and policy to be done in a politically advantageous manner, the government is never going to run out of money or lose its customer base or bought out or driven out of the market by a competitor and I don't mean that I want the government replaced by the free market, I just want to government to be limited to the large scale national responsibilities for which it is suited and for which it's inefficiency in micromanaging individuals isn't a significant negative. The national government is designed to deal with the population in the aggregate and should craft and enact policy that produces pragmatic solutions for the national interest and not try to drill down and deal with people on the micro level because that is best done by local and state governments that create more specific and targeted programs to help address individual needs and problems. The more people you try to help with a one size fits all legislative solution the more people in disparate situations you are forcing to fit under the same parameters and the more inefficient the solution becomes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: I love the bringing up the myth that if you somehow (magically) become more productive, you somehow earn significantly more money. That doesn't bear fruit in the real world where worker productivity has skyrocketed but wages have remained flat.
That's because the productivity gains haven't been caused by increasingly valuable worker skillsets but they've been primarily caused by technological innovation. Automation and technological improvements create machines and tools that allow a smaller number of workers to do the same a amount of work that used to require a larger amount of workers. If the population is increasing but technological innovation is decreasing the amount of people needed to get work done then you're going to have an excess amount of labor in the market and that's going to push down wages. If automation lets a factory produce the same amount of product with half as many workers the value of the labor of those workers hasn't increased. If a worker who used to do manual work on an assembly line develops additional skills that make the worker qualified to make a more valuable work, designing new products or improving the machinery or writing better code or developing more efficient systems etc. then that worker has a more valuable skillset and can earn higher wages.
Setting aside the magic wand wage doubling scenario, the point I wanted to make was that wealth is not a zero sum gain, having other people earn much more than you doesn't prevent you from earning more. You can improve your earning power without having to take earnings away from anyone else. You can always create more wealth or add more value we're not starting with a finite amount that we have to divvy up because they'll never be any more. You can increase your value as a worker and increase your earning power without having to take someone else's earning power away and wages away and redistribute them to you. The economy can grow, wages can grow every year without ever triggering hyperinflation or drastically shrinking the wealth gap. It doesn't matter if the super rich get even super richer if the workers at the low end see an earnings increase that boosts them from struggling to comfortable stability.
If the problem is that too many jobs in the private sector don't pay enough or the private sector in general isn't seeing enough wage growth then the answer to motivate the private sector to pay more and assist the workers in increasing the value of the labor. Having the govt redistribute wealth from the top end to the low end doesn't actually cause any changes to the wages of the low earning workers or make those workers more valuable and it removes any pressure on the private sector to increase wages because the govt is artificially increasing earnings for the workers through redistributive subsidies. If you have a crappy low paying job and are struggling to find a better one then yes getting additional money from the govt makes the situation better than not getting additional money from the govt but it still leaves you working a crappy low paying job and struggling to find a better one. Govt redistribution is never going to recreate the economy of the past wherein wages were higher and purchasing power was greater because that economy was built on a majority of the workforce having good paying jobs and govt subsidizing low paying private sector jobs isn't going to lead to increased wages.
I had a counter argument, but I realised that the "finite earth" argument is not actually what we're discussing. Capitalist economies do have a tendency to grow, but we will eventually reach an upper limit. That limit, however, is not actually something I can quantify, so I cannot use the argument.
I have no problem with doing things like upping the minimum wage, and using sensible regulations to stop prices from going out of control, but increasing *everyone's* pay will also mean the pay of the people at the top. That will require either the extraction of wealthy person's stored funds, a sudden increase in the economy,, or printing more money. The latter of which will most likely do as I predicted, the former is both authoritarian and unlikely, and the economy is not a reliable factor.
I think we're mostly in agreement. The only point you just made that I would dispute is that increasing wages on the lower end of the wealth spectrum is going to lead to greater earnings for people on the high end as well because the people on the low end that are making the more drastic improvement are going to be spending more money and the people at the high end of the spectrum are typically in a position to profit from increased consumer spending and growing economic activity. The gains at the top will be much smaller percentage wise than the ones at the bottom but they'll still be gains, they'll still be a wealth gap but those developments aren't necessarily going to be bad for the economy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: The economic system where a person gains more money as it becomes more productive or his work has more value is called comunism.
In capitalism, you gain what your boss offers you. Of course you can be your own boss, or you can work in a job where you are paid X money for the thing you do, like being an agricultor. But the mass of employers are proletarians and as that they earn what they boss whant them to earn.
You can be fired if you are inproductive, thats true. But your production isn't, generally, directly related to your payment.
Employers can't just set wages however they want, there are market forces that require employers to pay salaries that are commensurate with the quality of work they want. Could I find somebody to paint my entire house for $500? Maybe, but if I could would I be likely to be happy with the results? No. The labor that you provide to your employer has a certain amount of value that is based on various factors and that value is a big factor in the amount of compensation you are paid by your employer. It's a symbiotic relationship.
Employers do not pay based on the value of the work you produce. That's really a load of bull. That 'might' have been true in the past, but is not true now.
Right now, companies give huge raises to the executives and then 'don't have money' to give raises to the workers.
It has nothing to do with your performance. Getting more money is more of a matter of luck than skill.
Also, by default, government is more efficient than private enterprise as government doesn't need to have the waste that is profit.
Galas wrote: I think thats the biggest problem. I'm sure that, with a more efficient goverment, people is more willing to pay higger taxes, because you see how they are used and the actual improvement in your life. Even if it doesn't affect directly to you.
Even with efficient government people still resent paying taxes, and don't realise the scope of services and facilities government provides. I mean, how would a person even know if their government was efficient? Do you know what the road you drove to work on cost to build? Do you know what the road should have cost, if it was handled with absolute efficiency?
I'm not saying the roads were done efficiently, I don't know. The problem is no-one else does either. People just take services and infrastructure for granted, but remain resentful about the taxes they pay.
Well, I believe the key here is transparency. People should be able to find out, in a easy manner, how much money is being spent and on what.
Hell, I'm not resentful about the taxes that are spent on common services like Defense, police, roads, even schools, although I feel like property taxes are bs.
What many people seem to be upset about, myself included are taxes being spent frivolously, or redistributed as handouts with no accountability.
Here's an example. My wife and I make over 150k a year. We both work hard, waiting to have kids, don't use drugs or abuse alcohol, and make sound financial decisions. At tax time, we are ineligible for the EITC (earned income tax credit) for our two young children.
Fine whatever, I make enough.
Now take my sister in law.....5 Kids, no job, brother in law can barely hold a job, maybe had a combined income of 10k last year.
They got damn near 7k in EITC, ON TOP OF Medicaid, SNAP, and a plethora of other benefits. So literally money went from my pocket to their hand because they can't get their life straight.
I get it, the kids need to eat, but can anyone explain to me why or how they earned that 7k? Could we at least subtract the monetary amount that they get from their other benefits from that number (4k worth of food stamps over a year gets taken from that 7k).
Now multiply this situation by a few million across the U.S. and we have a real problem.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: Employers do not pay based on the value of the work you produce. That's really a load of bull. That 'might' have been true in the past, but is not true now.
Right now, companies give huge raises to the executives and then 'don't have money' to give raises to the workers.
It has nothing to do with your performance. Getting more money is more of a matter of luck than skill.
Also, by default, government is more efficient than private enterprise as government doesn't need to have the waste that is profit.
no government isn't more efficient, ever.
I can't think of one government program that runs in budget and effectively. There is no incentive for government programs to run efficiently. If they get 10$ one year and only need 9, they will spend the 10 on bull just to make sure that they still get 10 next year. I used to work for the government and I can tell you that, that is exactly how it works.
Additionally, Profit isn't "waste" it is used by a company to expand, which provides new jobs. It is used to develop new methods and technologies that enhance productivity or enrich quality of life.
Lastly, if you don't like a company and think they engage in shady business practices or mistreat workers, vote with your dollar, don't buy their products. Don't work for them, and encourage your family and friends to do the same.
Galas wrote: I think thats the biggest problem. I'm sure that, with a more efficient goverment, people is more willing to pay higger taxes, because you see how they are used and the actual improvement in your life. Even if it doesn't affect directly to you.
Even with efficient government people still resent paying taxes, and don't realise the scope of services and facilities government provides. I mean, how would a person even know if their government was efficient? Do you know what the road you drove to work on cost to build? Do you know what the road should have cost, if it was handled with absolute efficiency?
I'm not saying the roads were done efficiently, I don't know. The problem is no-one else does either. People just take services and infrastructure for granted, but remain resentful about the taxes they pay.
Well, I believe the key here is transparency. People should be able to find out, in a easy manner, how much money is being spent and on what.
Hell, I'm not resentful about the taxes that are spent on common services like Defense, police, roads, even schools, although I feel like property taxes are bs.
What many people seem to be upset about, myself included are taxes being spent frivolously, or redistributed as handouts with no accountability.
Here's an example. My wife and I make over 150k a year. We both work hard, waiting to have kids, don't use drugs or abuse alcohol, and make sound financial decisions. At tax time, we are ineligible for the EITC (earned income tax credit) for our two young children.
Nice dig, implying that people who are receiving assistance are lazy drug users. Not any where close to true, but hey...the myth perpetuates. And guess what, the people that make a lot less work a lot harder than you do. Only reason you got so far ahead is you got lucky.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: Employers do not pay based on the value of the work you produce. That's really a load of bull. That 'might' have been true in the past, but is not true now.
Right now, companies give huge raises to the executives and then 'don't have money' to give raises to the workers.
It has nothing to do with your performance. Getting more money is more of a matter of luck than skill.
Also, by default, government is more efficient than private enterprise as government doesn't need to have the waste that is profit.
no government isn't more efficient, ever.
I can't think of one government program that runs in budget and effectively.
Medicare does a lot better and more efficient than private insurance companies.
Additionally, Profit isn't "waste" it is used by a company to expand, which provides new jobs. It is used to develop new methods and technologies that enhance productivity or enrich quality of life..
Profit is 100% waste. It is the extra money that the company charges for its product after all expenses are paid. And btw, expenses include all those things that you mention. The company charges more for stuff than it costs to make it plus R&D, plus inflated executive salaries.
Prestor Jon wrote:
I can pick and choose what companies I patronize with my business but I can't pick and choose what laws apply to me no matter how horrible and unjust I might think they are.
I heard different things about, for example, trying to get telephone/internet service in the US. That's literary companies influencing government to their benefit. How would less government avoid that? The US government might have fethed up how it handled the high speed internet expansion and it 100% needs better regulation but without regulation things would be even worse (and that probably goes for most government missteps of that kind). Overall companies already got more money than most of us and you think that for some reason they'll just back off instead of trying to wring people out even more? History has shows us that power is something people don't want to give away (things usually just get worse until the idea of violence and a revolution sound better than the status quo and then you get to try things again). Governments you can vote for/against (and it may not go your way) but an entrenched company fething you over is even harder to displace. Governments, as bad as they are sometimes, are sadly our best defence against companies just doing whatever they want.
At least the companies in the private sector have to follow the laws and regulations just like everybody else whereas the govt gets to make up whatever rules they feel necessary. The politicians didn't have to repeal regulations that helped create the financial crisis in 2008 but they chose to do so, businesses couldn't have done that on their own. The govt decided that my 4th amendment rights don't apply if I want to get on an airplane, not the airlines.
Companies with enough money don't really have to follow the law. They'll follow it as long as it's the profitable thing to do. As soon as they see a way to make more they'll find excuses to bend the rules (be it lobbying or circumventing laws or just projecting possible fines against expected profits). Lobbying by private companies influences government and if you blame that on government alone then you are missing the bigger part of the problem and petitioning for less government will lead to an even worse situation for you, the individual. Here's a video about how lobbying affects your laws: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig (don't blame government, change government and blame the rich who are literary influencing the government for their own benefit). We have literary more than four decades of technological advancements, privatisation, and deregulation yet wages for the average worker are stagnant and the middle class is shrinking (and the 2008 recession was the cherry on top). The government is just the middle man for the people with the influence and not the originator of the ideas that got made into laws.
And are you seriously using government deregulation as a point against government instead against the companies that lobbied for that? Just think about this for a moment. Without government "interference" there wouldn't have been the initial regulation that protected us in the first place and banks would have burned down out economy much quicker. Why would they not? Private companies literary lobbying for deregulation is the culprit here and you find a way to blame the government. They affected and manipulated the government for their own profit. Like mentioned above, they can change the government (because they have the money to lobby for their own interests). There may be a flaw in how the government was implemented in this case but without it you would have been worse off much earlier.
And I don't know exactly what you mean with 4th amendment rights in regard to airplanes but if it's something about the increased "security" after 9/11, body scanners, and added regulation (take of your shoes, no liquids,…) then you can blame companies lobbying for that too (because they make money off the machines and supplying the TSA). Security experts have said the only thing that actually work after 9/11 are reinforced cockpit doors (buy a lot of time) and that passengers now know that terrorists would actually do such a thing so for the passengers there's no reason to not attack them before they cause more harm. The rest is just security theatre for contractors (meaning: private companies who did the lobbying) to extract money from the government (meaning higher taxes for you). They might not be airlines but the people financially benefiting from this are still private companies.
Businesses could have done all of this on their own and with less government they would have done it much quicker and with less protection for you. What's next? Complaining about how the government is destroying the economy by not allowing clild labour or because companies are not allowed to just dispose of their waste in the town river? When companies lobby to abolish those laws will you blame the government again or actually aim your displeasure at the people who are actually effecting those changes?
Galas wrote: I think thats the biggest problem. I'm sure that, with a more efficient goverment, people is more willing to pay higger taxes, because you see how they are used and the actual improvement in your life. Even if it doesn't affect directly to you.
Even with efficient government people still resent paying taxes, and don't realise the scope of services and facilities government provides. I mean, how would a person even know if their government was efficient? Do you know what the road you drove to work on cost to build? Do you know what the road should have cost, if it was handled with absolute efficiency?
I'm not saying the roads were done efficiently, I don't know. The problem is no-one else does either. People just take services and infrastructure for granted, but remain resentful about the taxes they pay.
Well, I believe the key here is transparency. People should be able to find out, in a easy manner, how much money is being spent and on what.
Hell, I'm not resentful about the taxes that are spent on common services like Defense, police, roads, even schools, although I feel like property taxes are bs.
What many people seem to be upset about, myself included are taxes being spent frivolously, or redistributed as handouts with no accountability.
Here's an example. My wife and I make over 150k a year. We both work hard, waiting to have kids, don't use drugs or abuse alcohol, and make sound financial decisions. At tax time, we are ineligible for the EITC (earned income tax credit) for our two young children.
Nice dig, implying that people who are receiving assistance are lazy drug users. Not any where close to true, but hey...the myth perpetuates. And guess what, the people that make a lot less work a lot harder than you do. Only reason you got so far ahead is you got lucky.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: Employers do not pay based on the value of the work you produce. That's really a load of bull. That 'might' have been true in the past, but is not true now.
Right now, companies give huge raises to the executives and then 'don't have money' to give raises to the workers.
It has nothing to do with your performance. Getting more money is more of a matter of luck than skill.
Also, by default, government is more efficient than private enterprise as government doesn't need to have the waste that is profit.
no government isn't more efficient, ever.
I can't think of one government program that runs in budget and effectively.
Medicare does a lot better and more efficient than private insurance companies.
Additionally, Profit isn't "waste" it is used by a company to expand, which provides new jobs. It is used to develop new methods and technologies that enhance productivity or enrich quality of life..
Profit is 100% waste. It is the extra money that the company charges for its product after all expenses are paid. And btw, expenses include all those things that you mention. The company charges more for stuff than it costs to make it plus R&D, plus inflated executive salaries.
OH boy where to start.
1. I never said anyone was on drugs.
2. You don't know what I do for a living, I'll just say I work in the finance industry.
Not all "work" has to be hard manual labor. Work includes completing jobs that require education, or expertise. I could say a DR. works harder than a construction worker, their occupation requires far higher amounts of education and training. Those CEO's you seem to be jealous of, many of them spent a decade or more In school, they make decisions which effect the lives of thousands of employees. That "work" is harder than what you do im sure.
3. I got where I am through good decisions.
Graduating highschool
Not having kids before I was able to support them
Joining the military to gain job experience, and GI BILL
Going to college and getting 3 degrees
Finding and holding a job. When I exited the military I got a job in my industry making 12$ an hour, through my own pursuit of continued education and ambition I've moved up and make much more.
Luck has nothing to do with it.
You know the kind of people who say luck has more to do with success than hard work or education? People who don't have the intestinal fortitude necessary to identify their own failures and improve themselves. They blame everyone else for their problems and bitch and moan about how hard they have it.
Grow up.
4. Medicare is garbage and is bankrupting the government, it is wasteful and provides gak care.
5. No...profit is what's used to expand, improve, or grow a company. expenses are things like electric bills, taxes, and payroll.
As far as CEO salaries, at the end of the day, it really isn't your business how much someone makes. Once again, if you feel that a company isn't being socially responsible, refuse to do business with them.
I think the biggest problem is that we don't really have a free market (Because the biggest business are the ones that really control the goverment) nor we have a strong independent goverment that works for the citizens.
Obviously, this is very different from country to country. I live in the second most corrupt country of western europe after Italy*, so I'm sorry if I'm cynical agains't my own goverment (But at the same time I'm not agains't the idea of a strong goverment. Quite the opposite) so I can asure without a doubt that at least in the case of Spain, the goverment controlled by politicians that work more like a mafia and the big monopoly business is true.
To put an example, one of our last presidents, José Maria Aznar, did a privatization of all of our electric system. After steping from the office, he did enter as a directive of the same electric business that did gained a monopoly on the electric industry in spain after his policies.
Is like... being a capitalist in easy mode. I'm totally of the idea that a business should work based in how good it is. But that really only applies to the mid and low scale business. The real bigger ones, they don't really have that kind of problem. Even if a really big business goes bankrupt, you can be sure that the guys responsible for that aren't gonna pay for doing that.
skyth wrote: Employers do not pay based on the value of the work you produce. That's really a load of bull. That 'might' have been true in the past, but is not true now.
Right now, companies give huge raises to the executives and then 'don't have money' to give raises to the workers. It has nothing to do with your performance. Getting more money is more of a matter of luck than skill.
Also, by default, government is more efficient than private enterprise as government doesn't need to have the waste that is profit.
no government isn't more efficient, ever.
I can't think of one government program that runs in budget and effectively.
Medicare does a lot better and more efficient than private insurance companies.
Oh hell no.
There are gross inefficiencies with the medicare system such that, if private insurance companies mirrors medicare, they'd go bankrupt.
Addtionally, don't conflate medicare as a traditional insurance... in fact, we shouldn't even use the word 'insurance' when describing Medicare (and Medicaid).
It's simply taxpayers paid-subsidy program with whole slew of regulations.
Additionally, Profit isn't "waste" it is used by a company to expand, which provides new jobs. It is used to develop new methods and technologies that enhance productivity or enrich quality of life..
Profit is 100% waste. It is the extra money that the company charges for its product after all expenses are paid. And btw, expenses include all those things that you mention. The company charges more for stuff than it costs to make it plus R&D, plus inflated executive salaries.
Supertony51 wrote: Here's an example. My wife and I make over 150k a year. We both work hard, waiting to have kids, don't use drugs or abuse alcohol, and make sound financial decisions. At tax time, we are ineligible for the EITC (earned income tax credit) for our two young children.
Fine whatever, I make enough.
Now take my sister in law.....5 Kids, no job, brother in law can barely hold a job, maybe had a combined income of 10k last year.
They got damn near 7k in EITC, ON TOP OF Medicaid, SNAP, and a plethora of other benefits. So literally money went from my pocket to their hand because they can't get their life straight.
I get it, the kids need to eat, but can anyone explain to me why or how they earned that 7k? Could we at least subtract the monetary amount that they get from their other benefits from that number (4k worth of food stamps over a year gets taken from that 7k).
Here's an example. I have no kids. I am responsible, and don't require any educational expenses for my nonexistent children. As a result I have money left to pay for other things.
Now take Supertony51. Two kids, a job that doesn't pay all that much, and getting the benefit of government-funded schools. So literally money went from my pocket to his hand because he can't get his life straight enough to pay for his own schools/roads/etc.
Why should the concept of "I should only have to pay taxes for people that I approve of" stop at providing certain welfare benefits? Why should I have to pay for your kids to go to school?
Additionally, Profit isn't "waste" it is used by a company to expand, which provides new jobs. It is used to develop new methods and technologies that enhance productivity or enrich quality of life.
No, that's not what profit is. Money spent on expansion, R&D, etc, is classified as expenses. Profit is the money left over after expenses, including growth expenses, have been paid. It goes out to the shareholders or is saved for the future, or is given as bonus payments to the CEO, but it certainly is not improving the lives of anyone who isn't a shareholder or in upper management.
I don't know how people can have such vitriol agains't goverment but at the same time ideolize so much private runned business or multinational.
(And to be honest it happens at the inverse too)
Yeah, you can vote with your wallet agains't business that you don't like, and in democratic countries you can vote with... your vote, agaisn't a goverment that you don't like. One can say that a Goverment has much more influence in our lives, and thats true. Unless you live in a country where basic and vital services are literally only provided by one giant monopolic business like gas, or electricity.
Peregrine wrote: Why should I have to pay for your kids to go to school?
Because you and your family, and all of humanity, will see the benefits of an educated population. Uneducated people are fairly useless at building hospitals, fixing people's livers, designing the next technological revolution, etc. And because it is a "pay it forward" system, to which you owe a social debt of gratitude for having reaped these benefits already - due to the system being older than you.
I'm trying to slowly kill, cripple, and bankrupt all of you and everyone you hold dear because that improves my chances to flourish in this modern world. Slavery is nothing. Real life tyranny the likes of which the world has never before seen is tax dollars going toward anything other than rat poison for your children.
daedalus wrote: I'm trying to slowly kill, cripple, and bankrupt all of you and everyone you hold dear because that improves my chances to flourish in this modern world. Slavery is nothing. Real life tyranny the likes of which the world has never before seen is tax dollars going toward anything other than rat poison for your children.
Can't tell if serious. But if serious, do you really se *no* benefit to people pooling their resources and working together for something other than an arbitrarily larger bank account?
Selym wrote: Because you and your family, and all of humanity, will see the benefits of an educated population. Uneducated people are fairly useless at building hospitals, fixing people's livers, designing the next technological revolution, etc. And because it is a "pay it forward" system, to which you owe a social debt of gratitude for having reaped these benefits already - due to the system being older than you.
The same is true of the things that the person I was responding to wants to end. I understand exactly why government-funded schools are good, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of supporting and accepting certain payments from the government for things that you can't do yourself while complaining that you have to pay for other people.
Galas wrote: I think thats the biggest problem. I'm sure that, with a more efficient goverment, people is more willing to pay higger taxes, because you see how they are used and the actual improvement in your life. Even if it doesn't affect directly to you.
Even with efficient government people still resent paying taxes, and don't realise the scope of services and facilities government provides. I mean, how would a person even know if their government was efficient? Do you know what the road you drove to work on cost to build? Do you know what the road should have cost, if it was handled with absolute efficiency?
I'm not saying the roads were done efficiently, I don't know. The problem is no-one else does either. People just take services and infrastructure for granted, but remain resentful about the taxes they pay.
Well, I believe the key here is transparency. People should be able to find out, in a easy manner, how much money is being spent and on what.
Hell, I'm not resentful about the taxes that are spent on common services like Defense, police, roads, even schools, although I feel like property taxes are bs.
What many people seem to be upset about, myself included are taxes being spent frivolously, or redistributed as handouts with no accountability.
Here's an example. My wife and I make over 150k a year. We both work hard, waiting to have kids, don't use drugs or abuse alcohol, and make sound financial decisions. At tax time, we are ineligible for the EITC (earned income tax credit) for our two young children.
Nice dig, implying that people who are receiving assistance are lazy drug users. Not any where close to true, but hey...the myth perpetuates. And guess what, the people that make a lot less work a lot harder than you do. Only reason you got so far ahead is you got lucky.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: Employers do not pay based on the value of the work you produce. That's really a load of bull. That 'might' have been true in the past, but is not true now.
Right now, companies give huge raises to the executives and then 'don't have money' to give raises to the workers.
It has nothing to do with your performance. Getting more money is more of a matter of luck than skill.
Also, by default, government is more efficient than private enterprise as government doesn't need to have the waste that is profit.
no government isn't more efficient, ever.
I can't think of one government program that runs in budget and effectively.
Medicare does a lot better and more efficient than private insurance companies.
Additionally, Profit isn't "waste" it is used by a company to expand, which provides new jobs. It is used to develop new methods and technologies that enhance productivity or enrich quality of life..
Profit is 100% waste. It is the extra money that the company charges for its product after all expenses are paid. And btw, expenses include all those things that you mention. The company charges more for stuff than it costs to make it plus R&D, plus inflated executive salaries.
OH boy where to start.
1. I never said anyone was on drugs.
I never said you said it. What I said you did is imply it. Or else what was the point of you bringing it up in the first place?
2. You don't know what I do for a living, I'll just say I work in the finance industry.
Not all "work" has to be hard manual labor. Work includes completing jobs that require education, or expertise. I could say a DR. works harder than a construction worker, their occupation requires far higher amounts of education and training. Those CEO's you seem to be jealous of, many of them spent a decade or more In school, they make decisions which effect the lives of thousands of employees. That "work" is harder than what you do im sure.
It's different from what I do. They do not work 200 times as hard as I do though definitely. And btw, you have to be lucky to have that education and training.
3. I got where I am through good decisions.
Graduating highschool
Not having kids before I was able to support them
Joining the military to gain job experience, and GI BILL
Going to college and getting 3 degrees
Finding and holding a job. When I exited the military I got a job in my industry making 12$ an hour, through my own pursuit of continued education and ambition I've moved up and make much more.
Luck has nothing to do with it.
Luck had a lot more to do with it than you are willing to admit.
You have no control over when and where you are born. Let's see your finance ability do you a lot of good if you were born a female black slave in the 1600's.
You have no control over who your parents are and your upbringing.
You have no control over how much (and what sort of) intelligence you have. Some things come a lot easier than other things to people. My wife would never be able to handle the numbers required for finances. She's smart in other ways, but she wasn't lucky enough to have a gift with numbers that society has deemed to be valuable.
You have very little control over your own health. If you had asthma, you wouldn't have been able to join the military. There goes your GI bill.
Speaking of GI Bill, you had no control over that being in existence in the first place.
You have no control over your physical appearance. Attractive people tend to be more successful and given more opportunities.
You have no control over whether what you went to school for changes.
You have no control over if someone is even more gifted that comes along and keeps you out of your job.
It's a myth that hard work equals success. Not working hard can keep you from achieving success, but the overriding difference between those who are successful and those who are not is just luck.
You know the kind of people who say luck has more to do with success than hard work or education? People who don't have the intestinal fortitude necessary to identify their own failures and improve themselves. They blame everyone else for their problems and bitch and moan about how hard they have it.
You know the people who say luck has nothing to do with success? The people who live in a fantasy land and have no realization or appreciation for what they've been given.
4. Medicare is garbage and is bankrupting the government, it is wasteful and provides gak care.
Nope.
5. No...profit is what's used to expand, improve, or grow a company. expenses are things like electric bills, taxes, and payroll.
As far as CEO salaries, at the end of the day, it really isn't your business how much someone makes. Once again, if you feel that a company isn't being socially responsible, refuse to do business with them.
As a member of society, yes it is my business that wealth isn't being distributed properly. And it's hard to refuse to do business with everyone. That isn't practical. Especially when they are the only providers in the area. There is a serious power discrepancy and that is an issue.
Supertony51 wrote: Here's an example. My wife and I make over 150k a year. We both work hard, waiting to have kids, don't use drugs or abuse alcohol, and make sound financial decisions. At tax time, we are ineligible for the EITC (earned income tax credit) for our two young children.
Fine whatever, I make enough.
Now take my sister in law.....5 Kids, no job, brother in law can barely hold a job, maybe had a combined income of 10k last year.
They got damn near 7k in EITC, ON TOP OF Medicaid, SNAP, and a plethora of other benefits. So literally money went from my pocket to their hand because they can't get their life straight.
I get it, the kids need to eat, but can anyone explain to me why or how they earned that 7k? Could we at least subtract the monetary amount that they get from their other benefits from that number (4k worth of food stamps over a year gets taken from that 7k).
Here's an example. I have no kids. I am responsible, and don't require any educational expenses for my nonexistent children. As a result I have money left to pay for other things.
Now take Supertony51. Two kids, a job that doesn't pay all that much, and getting the benefit of government-funded schools. So literally money went from my pocket to his hand because he can't get his life straight enough to pay for his own schools/roads/etc.
Why should the concept of "I should only have to pay taxes for people that I approve of" stop at providing certain welfare benefits? Why should I have to pay for your kids to go to school?
Additionally, Profit isn't "waste" it is used by a company to expand, which provides new jobs. It is used to develop new methods and technologies that enhance productivity or enrich quality of life.
No, that's not what profit is. Money spent on expansion, R&D, etc, is classified as expenses. Profit is the money left over after expenses, including growth expenses, have been paid. It goes out to the shareholders or is saved for the future, or is given as bonus payments to the CEO, but it certainly is not improving the lives of anyone who isn't a shareholder or in upper management.
Awww, look at the weak attempt at a personal attack, how cute.
Pretty sure I specifically said that I'm perfectly fine with taxes paying for common services....like schools.
I'm not okay with direct redistribution of "my" money to other people, especially when their situation is primarily of their own making.
If your cool with that fine, create a non-profit that can collect donations from like minded folks and can hand money over to people through your own free will.
Galas wrote: I think thats the biggest problem. I'm sure that, with a more efficient goverment, people is more willing to pay higger taxes, because you see how they are used and the actual improvement in your life. Even if it doesn't affect directly to you.
Even with efficient government people still resent paying taxes, and don't realise the scope of services and facilities government provides. I mean, how would a person even know if their government was efficient? Do you know what the road you drove to work on cost to build? Do you know what the road should have cost, if it was handled with absolute efficiency?
I'm not saying the roads were done efficiently, I don't know. The problem is no-one else does either. People just take services and infrastructure for granted, but remain resentful about the taxes they pay.
Well, I believe the key here is transparency. People should be able to find out, in a easy manner, how much money is being spent and on what.
Hell, I'm not resentful about the taxes that are spent on common services like Defense, police, roads, even schools, although I feel like property taxes are bs.
What many people seem to be upset about, myself included are taxes being spent frivolously, or redistributed as handouts with no accountability.
Here's an example. My wife and I make over 150k a year. We both work hard, waiting to have kids, don't use drugs or abuse alcohol, and make sound financial decisions. At tax time, we are ineligible for the EITC (earned income tax credit) for our two young children.
Nice dig, implying that people who are receiving assistance are lazy drug users. Not any where close to true, but hey...the myth perpetuates. And guess what, the people that make a lot less work a lot harder than you do. Only reason you got so far ahead is you got lucky.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: Employers do not pay based on the value of the work you produce. That's really a load of bull. That 'might' have been true in the past, but is not true now.
Right now, companies give huge raises to the executives and then 'don't have money' to give raises to the workers.
It has nothing to do with your performance. Getting more money is more of a matter of luck than skill.
Also, by default, government is more efficient than private enterprise as government doesn't need to have the waste that is profit.
no government isn't more efficient, ever.
I can't think of one government program that runs in budget and effectively.
Medicare does a lot better and more efficient than private insurance companies.
Additionally, Profit isn't "waste" it is used by a company to expand, which provides new jobs. It is used to develop new methods and technologies that enhance productivity or enrich quality of life..
Profit is 100% waste. It is the extra money that the company charges for its product after all expenses are paid. And btw, expenses include all those things that you mention. The company charges more for stuff than it costs to make it plus R&D, plus inflated executive salaries.
OH boy where to start.
1. I never said anyone was on drugs.
I never said you said it. What I said you did is imply it. Or else what was the point of you bringing it up in the first place?
2. You don't know what I do for a living, I'll just say I work in the finance industry.
Not all "work" has to be hard manual labor. Work includes completing jobs that require education, or expertise. I could say a DR. works harder than a construction worker, their occupation requires far higher amounts of education and training. Those CEO's you seem to be jealous of, many of them spent a decade or more In school, they make decisions which effect the lives of thousands of employees. That "work" is harder than what you do im sure.
It's different from what I do. They do not work 200 times as hard as I do though definitely. And btw, you have to be lucky to have that education and training.
3. I got where I am through good decisions.
Graduating highschool
Not having kids before I was able to support them
Joining the military to gain job experience, and GI BILL
Going to college and getting 3 degrees
Finding and holding a job. When I exited the military I got a job in my industry making 12$ an hour, through my own pursuit of continued education and ambition I've moved up and make much more.
Luck has nothing to do with it.
Luck had a lot more to do with it than you are willing to admit.
You have no control over when and where you are born. Let's see your finance ability do you a lot of good if you were born a female black slave in the 1600's.
You have no control over who your parents are and your upbringing.
You have no control over how much (and what sort of) intelligence you have. Some things come a lot easier than other things to people. My wife would never be able to handle the numbers required for finances. She's smart in other ways, but she wasn't lucky enough to have a gift with numbers that society has deemed to be valuable.
You have very little control over your own health. If you had asthma, you wouldn't have been able to join the military. There goes your GI bill.
Speaking of GI Bill, you had no control over that being in existence in the first place.
You have no control over your physical appearance. Attractive people tend to be more successful and given more opportunities.
You have no control over whether what you went to school for changes.
You have no control over if someone is even more gifted that comes along and keeps you out of your job.
It's a myth that hard work equals success. Not working hard can keep you from achieving success, but the overriding difference between those who are successful and those who are not is just luck.
You know the kind of people who say luck has more to do with success than hard work or education? People who don't have the intestinal fortitude necessary to identify their own failures and improve themselves. They blame everyone else for their problems and bitch and moan about how hard they have it.
You know the people who say luck has nothing to do with success? The people who live in a fantasy land and have no realization or appreciation for what they've been given.
4. Medicare is garbage and is bankrupting the government, it is wasteful and provides gak care.
Nope.
5. No...profit is what's used to expand, improve, or grow a company. expenses are things like electric bills, taxes, and payroll.
As far as CEO salaries, at the end of the day, it really isn't your business how much someone makes. Once again, if you feel that a company isn't being socially responsible, refuse to do business with them.
As a member of society, yes it is my business that wealth isn't being distributed properly. And it's hard to refuse to do business with everyone. That isn't practical. Especially when they are the only providers in the area. There is a serious power discrepancy and that is an issue.
1. What does being born as a black slave in the 1600's have to do with anything. We are talking about people born in America in the modern age. We can talk about economic privilege, I can understand that, but it still doesn't dispute the fact that peoples situations, in their adult life, are largely due to their own decisions.
You can be raised by substandard parents and still end up successful if you want. Unlikely, but it can happen. Even in those situations where someone has gakky parents, it's no fault of mine and they aren't entitled to my labor just because they have a gakky mom or dad. the world isn't fair.
since im pressed for time i'll skip addressing everything you listed. Long story short, is their luck, sure, but it plays a far less a part than making good or bad decisions as an adult.
Lastly, no it's still not your business on how much someone does or does not make. You aren't entitled to someone elses labor, no matter how you try to justify it. If I start a business, build it from the ground up and am successful, that's my money im earning and you aren't entitled to it. That's slavery.
Kilkrazy wrote: You've posited and refuted your argument between one sentence and the next.
...peoples situations, in their adult life, are largely due to their own decisions.
You can be raised by substandard parents and still end up successful if you want. Unlikely, but it can happen.
I'm conceding that some people are born into better situations than others. I still make the point that a persons success is largely based on their personal decisions.
I guess I should have worded that better. I'm working a early shift on a Saturday and my brain hasn't absorbed coffee yet.
Plus good or bad decisions play little role in success.
Luck (in the form of genetics(intelligence, health, and appearance), upbringing(values imparted, network, support, and location), circumstances, and other people(Someone better wasn't around, you randomly run into the right people)) play a much much larger role.
But continue living in your fantasy land where if everyone made the same decisions you did, they would be just as well off as you are...
skyth wrote: Plus good or bad decisions play little role in success.
Luck (in the form of genetics(intelligence, health, and appearance), upbringing(values imparted, network, support, and location), circumstances, and other people(Someone better wasn't around, you randomly run into the right people)) play a much much larger role.
But continue living in your fantasy land where if everyone made the same decisions you did, they would be just as well off as you are...
LOL
Experiences may very, you seem to live in a world where if one man walks into a room with 5 dollars and another walks in with 1, that somehow the man with 5 didn't earn it and they exploited the man with 1.
Harvard Business Review did an interesting article on executives in large businesses.
Their finding was that the correlation between ability/skills and success was fairly weak. It was more important to be lucky. This brought you to the attention of the top execs, and they preferentially selected you for further promotion.
Speaking from personal experience, there are limits to what each person can do.
- Some people are just not very capable. They might only be able to work in a warehouse, or are barely intelligent enough to be someone's cleaner. These jobs do not pay well, and will often have you not earn enough money to feed yourself or your kids.
- No matter how capable a population is, there have to be people at the bottom. It is not logically possible for everyone to "pull themselves up by the bootstraps", because every economy needs people to stay at the bottom rung. It is a fact of economies. No matter how hard everyone works, somebody's going to get gakked on by the system.
- Some success does rely on the downfall of others. Companies go bust, people get laid off, skillsets get made redundant. All can contribute to someone spending most of their life in need of support measures.
As a result, it is far from just laziness and poor decisions that keep people down.
Selym wrote: - No matter how capable a population is, there have to be people at the bottom. It is not logically possible for everyone to "pull themselves up by the bootstraps", because every economy needs people to stay at the bottom rung. It is a fact of economies. No matter how hard everyone works, somebody's going to get gakked on by the system.
a. This does not mean their lives have to be horrible. You can still do the menial jobs of society without undue suffer, which is the point of a lot of leftist policies.
b. it's also not true because of one important thing. *automation* Before we "needed" people to me poor to do the things like mining, construction, farming, ect. But with the growth of automation that is no longer true. And this leaves us two options. With everything getting cheaper and cheaper to make, do we take care of those who cannot do anything, or leave them to fail. I know what side I'm on.
And, eventually, we will reach a point (more specifically, post-scarcity) where we'll either have to transition into a socialist or pseudo-communism state, or just become a capitalist distopia, where only those who control the production can survive.
Selym wrote: - No matter how capable a population is, there have to be people at the bottom. It is not logically possible for everyone to "pull themselves up by the bootstraps", because every economy needs people to stay at the bottom rung. It is a fact of economies. No matter how hard everyone works, somebody's going to get gakked on by the system.
a. This does not mean their lives have to be horrible. You can still do the menial jobs of society without undue suffer, which is the point of a lot of leftist policies.
b. it's also not true because of one important thing. *automation* Before we "needed" people to me poor to do the things like mining, construction, farming, ect. But with the growth of automation that is no longer true. And this leaves us two options. With everything getting cheaper and cheaper to make, do we take care of those who cannot do anything, or leave them to fail. I know what side I'm on.
And, eventually, we will reach a point (more specifically, post-scarcity) where we'll either have to transition into a socialist or pseudo-communism state, or just become a capitalist distopia, where only those who control the production can survive.
I see nothing disputable here, except for one thing. We have not reached sufficient levels of automation yet to resolve the issue of "the working class poor".
While governments *should* ensure that even the lowest-wage workers are making a living wage that sad fact is they are reluctant to do it. The UK government claims to have guaranteed a Living Wage, but what they actually did was redefine "Living Wage" to mean whatever they want it to mean.
daedalus wrote: I'm trying to slowly kill, cripple, and bankrupt all of you and everyone you hold dear because that improves my chances to flourish in this modern world. Slavery is nothing. Real life tyranny the likes of which the world has never before seen is tax dollars going toward anything other than rat poison for your children.
Can't tell if serious. But if serious, do you really se *no* benefit to people pooling their resources and working together for something other than an arbitrarily larger bank account?
It was not serious at all. The fact that it's impossible to tell if that kind of stuff IS serious says something about the world we live in though.
daedalus wrote: I'm trying to slowly kill, cripple, and bankrupt all of you and everyone you hold dear because that improves my chances to flourish in this modern world. Slavery is nothing. Real life tyranny the likes of which the world has never before seen is tax dollars going toward anything other than rat poison for your children.
Can't tell if serious. But if serious, do you really se *no* benefit to people pooling their resources and working together for something other than an arbitrarily larger bank account?
It was not serious at all. The fact that it's impossible to tell if that kind of stuff IS serious says something about the world we live in though.
Who needs Grimdark, amirite?
(Goes off into a corner to pretend we don't live in a universe where some people make it so that we need 40k to remind us that it *could* be worse)
Supertony51 wrote: Pretty sure I specifically said that I'm perfectly fine with taxes paying for common services....like schools.
And my point is that you're defining "common services" in an arbitrary way that just happens to exclude the things you don't want to pay for, but leaves the things that you personally benefit from.
I'm not okay with direct redistribution of "my" money to other people, especially when their situation is primarily of their own making.
But you sure seem to be ok with direct redistribution of my money to yourself, even though your situation is primarily of your own making.
If your cool with that fine, create a non-profit that can collect donations from like minded folks and can hand money over to people through your own free will.
The same could be said of all of the government services that you benefit from and want to keep.
In terms of where a person's money is going, how does nobody just imagine that their tax is just going into one thing? Each government funded project will cost millions to billions of tax dollars/pounds. Your lifetime tax contributions will most likely make only a fraction of one project. Why not just imagine that all your money is going to roadworks, or schools, or something else that fits the criterion of selfish gain, while everyone else is paying for the chaff?
Selym wrote: In terms of where a person's money is going, how does nobody just imagine that their tax is just going into one thing? Each government funded project will cost millions to billions of tax dollars/pounds. Your lifetime tax contributions will most likely make only a fraction of one project. Why not just imagine that all your money is going to roadworks, or schools, or something else that fits the criterion of selfish gain, while everyone else is paying for the chaff?
I actually like thinking about them as a membership fee to belong to society. I don't mind the majority of the ones that I currently pay, but new or additional taxes are things I'm not necessarily excited about the idea of. Not always though. I think during this last election, I voted to increase taxes to provide additional revenue specifically for upkeep on the Missouri national parks. That gak's basically my backyard.
Co'tor Shas wrote:And, eventually, we will reach a point (more specifically, post-scarcity) where we'll either have to transition into a socialist or pseudo-communism state
Yup, higher taxes that pay for social services and support of the poor are essentially a type of guillotine insurance for the rich, that is: if they want to avoid a revolution.
And, eventually, we will reach a point (more specifically, post-scarcity) where we'll either have to transition into a socialist or pseudo-communism state, or just become a capitalist distopia, where only those who control the production can survive.
I think the likelihood of humanity achieving a post-scarcity economy in the next thousand years is pretty close to nil. Your talking about a society that can build dyson spheres and we can currently only harness a fraction of a single planet's energy output. I don't think we can risk waiting on that to push for a socio-anarchist society. We need to get a shift on before 90% of people lose their jobs to robots and AIs in the next thirty years or so. Unfortunatley, almost no governments are even thinking about the oncoming disaster because A) it's almost incomprehensible and B) talking about how everyone will be losing their jobs and we're going to have to deal with it rather than just stop it from happening isn't really a vote-winner.
It's wonderful how we could solve these sorts of problems, if humanity as a whole could actually be bothered to face up to them. The sad reality is that politicians cannot discuss serious issues with human organisation as a whole, because it implicates the voter as well as the politician as being at fault. I've had a few of these discussions before, and it almost always results in people mentally running away and hiding from it.
To get to this ideal of post-scarcity, we would need a massive boost to science funding, international cooperation on the conservation and efficient use of Earth's resources, and an everyone-is-in-on-it push to get into space. We'd need new industries, we would have to basically scrap the current education system (as it is both incredibly inefficient and out of date in the UK and US), and we would have to realign our social values from "protect ourselves from other humans" to "do what is necessary to stop our faults from getting us killed".
Not an easy task.
Not to mention that we have no experts on how to actually reach post-scarcity, never mind experts on how such a system would work.
That does seem like a formidable challenge. It is really begging the question to refer to post-scarcity however because it assumes scarcity. I think giving extensive attention to the concept is solutionist. There are many suggestions, very much in the popular media even, that enough food and housing is produced to feed and house the entire population.
As I understand it, we already live in a post-scarcity age in terms of food production, but there are people dying of starvation because their countries are involved in civil war which disrupts distribution channels (e.g. The Yemen, South Sudan, etc.)
A different example is the scarcity of housing in the UK, which isn't caused by a scarcity of space or capacity to build housing, but by a system of perverse incentives that prevent local councils from building social housing while leading house building companies to use their land banks to produce retirement homes because there is a lower tax regime making such projects more profitable.
Kilkrazy wrote: As I understand it, we already live in a post-scarcity age in terms of food production, but there are people dying of starvation because their countries are involved in civil war which disrupts distribution channels (e.g. The Yemen, South Sudan, etc.)
Post-scarcity is not just the ability to produce enough of a thing, it's the ability to produce enough of a thing so easily that it no longer has exchange value. We're not post scarcity in anything. Virtually all production still requires considerable input and consequently outputs still cost money. Food production is still pretty energy intensive. Energy is the problem.
A different example is the scarcity of housing in the UK, which isn't caused by a scarcity of space or capacity to build housing, but by a system of perverse incentives that prevent local councils from building social housing while leading house building companies to use their land banks to produce retirement homes because there is a lower tax regime making such projects more profitable.
Even worse, we have enough housing for everyone but tons of it is unoccupied.
Supertony51 wrote: Well, I believe the key here is transparency. People should be able to find out, in a easy manner, how much money is being spent and on what.
Hell, I'm not resentful about the taxes that are spent on common services like Defense, police, roads, even schools, although I feel like property taxes are bs.
What many people seem to be upset about, myself included are taxes being spent frivolously, or redistributed as handouts with no accountability.
All that data is publicly available, and easily accessed. Hell, you could probably get most of your answers from the wikipedia summary.
There's two problems. The first is that people don't bother to access this information, and then complain they don't know.
The second problem is that simply knowing where money is spent doesn't make you capable of knowing whether it was spent well. This isn't just a mistake the public makes, politicians do it too. They see one school with 1,000 kids and good results spent $2m, and another school with 750 kids and mediocre results spent $3m. But the second school might represent an area full of really troubled kids, and might have excellent courses in expensive but non-academic classes like metal work. The first school might be skating by with gifted kids, and blowing a fortune on a bloated administration.
Despite these two problems, people do little to address either knowledge shortfall, and still feel their opinion is valid and informed.
I agree on property taxes, by the way. Taxes should be some combination of consumption tax, income tax and excises. All other taxes are sub-optimal.
They got damn near 7k in EITC, ON TOP OF Medicaid, SNAP, and a plethora of other benefits. So literally money went from my pocket to their hand because they can't get their life straight.
I get it, the kids need to eat, but can anyone explain to me why or how they earned that 7k?
Both you and skyth are talking in generalistions. You are right in a general sense, the private sector is less efficient in most things. This is why most things are left to the private sector. But there's a whole lot of things where there simply isn't a market for private sector work, and on top of that there are instances where the private sector is actually less efficient. Healthcare gets mentioned as an example of this - there is a direct connection between greater government involvement in a nation's healthcare and lower expenses, for a given quality of care.
There is no incentive for government programs to run efficiently. If they get 10$ one year and only need 9, they will spend the 10 on bull just to make sure that they still get 10 next year. I used to work for the government and I can tell you that, that is exactly how it works.
This still happens in some areas, but is being steadily pushed out of public practice. The simplest replacement is clean slate, which is similar to but not quite the same as zero based budgeting, which also defeats the practice you describe above. Bid budgeting is growing, where all depts get only their base budget for skeleton admin staff, and then bid for allocations based on what services projects they can offer for a given amount of funding, and there is also commitment budgeting which allocates funds based on budget estimates on what govt is committed to do.
I can't tell you the extent of these practices in the US. I have read plenty of pieces talking about the positive impact they've had as they've been rolled out, and cases studies on this stuff have been around for decades now.
They aren't perfect solutions, but then private sector allocations aren't perfect either. But they do represent a more real world view of how government finances operate today. The complaint you make is a very pointed criticism of 1970s government.
Additionally, Profit isn't "waste" it is used by a company to expand, which provides new jobs. It is used to develop new methods and technologies that enhance productivity or enrich quality of life.
Additionally, Profit isn't "waste" it is used by a company to expand, which provides new jobs. It is used to develop new methods and technologies that enhance productivity or enrich quality of life.
Agreed.
Other than the fact that profit is what is left over after the money is spent on expansion and R&D, etc as well. The fact remains that the product cost less to make than is charged for it, thus it is 'waste' as far as government services are concerned.
If the government charged a $100 fee for something that only cost $90 to do, there would be people up in arms about that. However, if a private enterprise took over and did the same thing, the same people wouldn't have an issue with it. This lack of a need to turn a profit makes, in equal situations, government more efficient than private enterprises.
Plus government doesn't need to pay million dollar salaries to executives. If government leaders were paid the way that corporate executives are paid, there would be a major uproar. Heck, consider the complaint that teachers are overpaid when people don't complain about corporate managers that have 25 direct reports being paid a lot more than teachers are...
Yeah, does government need to pay their governing personnel 6 figures a year on top of perks? Not to mention the fact that most congresspersons also have their law firms feeding them private sector funds. Government waste happens in completely different ways, but it still exists, and is even worse in my mind because it happens with no private sector competition, which at least curbs the worst of the private sector issues.
Just Tony wrote: Yeah, does government need to pay their governing personnel 6 figures a year on top of perks? Not to mention the fact that most congresspersons also have their law firms feeding them private sector funds. Government waste happens in completely different ways, but it still exists, and is even worse in my mind because it happens with no private sector competition, which at least curbs the worst of the private sector issues.
Competition doesn't curb the worst of the private sector issues though. If it did, executive compensation would be more in line with employee compensation instead of way out of proportion.
And if you got paid the same for ZERO responsibility or for taking ALL the responsibility, what would you do? Human nature is to take the path of least resistance, and while someone may be ambitious enough to take that responsibility with next to no compensation, 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of humanity wouldn't.
Just Tony wrote: And if you got paid the same for ZERO responsibility or for taking ALL the responsibility, what would you do? Human nature is to take the path of least resistance, and while someone may be ambitious enough to take that responsibility with next to no compensation, 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of humanity wouldn't.
That percentage would imply that not one member of the human race would take responsibiility. We know for a fact that is not true, due to there being people who do take responsibility.
Just Tony wrote: And if you got paid the same for ZERO responsibility or for taking ALL the responsibility, what would you do? Human nature is to take the path of least resistance, and while someone may be ambitious enough to take that responsibility with next to no compensation, 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of humanity wouldn't.
Straw man much?
No one said that executives shouldn't be paid more than line workers. However, their pay should be a much smaller multiplier of what the line workers make than it is now.
The private sector has worked hard to make sure that it is much less than a free market. It constantly demands government intervention in the form of subsidies, tariffs, and other taxpayer largesse. When it fails, it demands bailouts, but the top players never give back their money. Competition is for the rubes at the bottom. Industries are often only nominally competitive to justify price hikes or buyouts.
Which private sector would you like the government to emulate? The very successful US auto industry that has repeatedly destroyed itself (except when propped p by public money)? Since we are talking budgets and resources perhaps the wildly successful financial industry that has produced catastrophic market crashes and required numerous bailouts?
Or, perhaps recognize that large scale coordinated human activities are inherently intertwined. And humans can run things well or poorly, depending on the systems in place. Government is nothing more than people trying to manage how things get done. Traditionally, the powerful dominate the game by force and take a disproportionate share of the resources while shouldering very little of the work. Apparently some people hate such a system if it is called monarchy but are just fine if it is called capitalism instead. Likewise, the poor possibly taking advantage of government programs is an unthinkable evil (and ignores that if it was such an exploit, the poverty rate would probably decline due to the resource reallocation), but the wealthy doing the same is readily accepted.
Compensation is a fiction created to justify why you spend all your time doing menial labor while someone else collects the benefit. Add cost taps to make sure your compensation gets bled off into necessities and you basically have servitude. Humans will often work for a variety of nonmaterial reasons including a sense of duty, self or community improvement, interest in the work, etc. Unless you believe that humanity never labored or produced before formal compensation existed.
Just Tony wrote: And if you got paid the same for ZERO responsibility or for taking ALL the responsibility, what would you do? Human nature is to take the path of least resistance, and while someone may be ambitious enough to take that responsibility with next to no compensation, 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of humanity wouldn't.
You have no idea what "human nature" is. Don't use that argument. Throughout all of history, it has been used poorly and constantly, to support every single possible viewpoint.
More libertarian centrist. I am all for freedom, but most of the time, people seem to use freedom to justify their mediocrity and do stupid things. AKA, use the excuse of freedom to be a big pile of fat (I'm free to be unhealthy), use the excuse of free speech to say hateful and ridiculous things (true patriots are against same sex-marriage), etc.
Seems to me that freedom is like alcohol. The more you take, the less good it is.
CptJake wrote: Let 'em be a big pile of fat. As long as they don't expect my tax dollars to subsidize the resulting health care costs.
Don't know if you mean :
1) Privatize healthcare
or
2) Make public healtcare only accessible to people who are not living an unhealthy life.
If 1), then :
I'd prefer healthcare to be accessible to everyone. There's no reason to make an essential need unaccessible to the majority of the population, especially those that have lower income, because a minority is unable to be responsible. I myself was saved by a surgical intervention from a tumor in my throat when I was one year old. Had healthcare been privatized back then, I would have died from it. I owe my life to public healthcare.
If 2), then :
Indeed. People should be held responsible for their reckless behaviour. Otherwise, they'll never learn.
People don't generally learn from dying. They just die.
And if healthy people don't have to subsidize unhealthy people, I think poor people shouldn't have to subsidize multi-billion dollar corporations and tax cuts for the rich
We all end up with our tax dollars going to stuff that doesn't benefit us. The trade off is tax dollars going to stuff that does.
Indeed. People should be held responsible for their reckless behaviour. Otherwise, they'll never learn.
Where do you stop if you go down that road, and who defines reckless? I spend ten or so hours in a gym a week, run on all my gym off-days, have less than 5% body fat, and keep an extremely good diet. I have a hernia that is almost certainly the result of weightlifting, though. Should I be liable for the surgery I'm waiting on because it's self-inflicted, even though it was self-inflicted in the pursuit of being healthy?
What about an obese woman who collapses because she's out jogging trying to lose weight?
Indeed. People should be held responsible for their reckless behaviour. Otherwise, they'll never learn.
Where do you stop if you go down that road, and who defines reckless? I spend ten or so hours in a gym a week, run on all my gym off-days, have less than 5% body fat, and keep an extremely good diet. I have a hernia that is almost certainly the result of weightlifting, though. Should I be liable for the surgery I'm waiting on because it's self-inflicted, even though it was self-inflicted in the pursuit of being healthy?
What about an obese woman who collapses because she's out jogging trying to lose weight?
It's also insane to have thoughts like that because a person's weight is the result of a multitude of factors beyond their control and depending on their genetics can strongly resist attempts at decreasing the amount of body fat.
Nah, it's completely consistent with a human tendency to view the self as virtuous and others in need as deficient. Of course when the tables are flipped, everything changes. It is also ironic that poor "lifestyle" choices are condemned but ignore the reality that gets them there- the poor, for example, generally have worse nutritional access and information. Why do we not equally condemn those who relentlessly push unhealthy products?
A medical system should be about addressing medical needs, not moralizing who requires treatment. Preventable causes should be addressed, but, again, without the whole self righteous garb. People are quick to condemn the overweight, but ignore the myriad conditions that could be symptomatic of. The superficiality and callousness is astounding. But I guess people are okay with their money going to make outrageous unearned profits so long as the fat, ugly, and poor suffer. Never mind that studies indicate that Americans without insurance have about a 40% higher death risk across the board (which translates to about 45,000 deaths a year) and uninsured children are about 60% more likely to die resulting in about 17,000 deaths.
Just Tony wrote: Yeah, does government need to pay their governing personnel 6 figures a year on top of perks? Not to mention the fact that most congresspersons also have their law firms feeding them private sector funds. Government waste happens in completely different ways, but it still exists, and is even worse in my mind because it happens with no private sector competition, which at least curbs the worst of the private sector issues.
Competition only curbs issues in some cases, only if the behavior is subject to market forces (or that market forces aren't driving that excess because of poorly functioning, often intentionally malfunctioning, incentives) and that competition actually exists, neither of which is true by any means in the private sector, especially for healthcare.
Listen, I work 40 hours a week. I am pretty unhealthy. I am also pretty depressed on a daily basis because of my job and my life. I have had to take care of/teach others how to take care of 5 deaths in the past 6 months. Most people don't see, let alone prepare, that many dead bodies in a lifetime. I also don't make enough money to pay for a gym membership on my days off or health insurance to get medication for my depression. I cannot pay it out of pocket with rent, gas, uniforms, food, and other essentials that I need for life.
If I want to go home and eat a pizza or some tacos in order to make myself feel better, I am going to do it and you can take your self righteousness somewhere else.
If your concern with healthcare expenses is that some people are there because of poor choices, the solution is not to cut off their healthcare. It is to note the following:
- What can be caused by poor choices can be the result of a myriad of other factors
- Some of these people are valuable in a non-medical way (such as brilliant scientists)
- You may find yourself in one of those circumstances
- Cutting of that sort of support will eventually swing back around to hurt you and the people you care about
- You can reduce the issue through education and better distribution of resources
jmurph wrote:Nah, it's completely consistent with a human tendency to view the self as virtuous and others in need as deficient. Of course when the tables are flipped, everything changes. It is also ironic that poor "lifestyle" choices are condemned but ignore the reality that gets them there- the poor, for example, generally have worse nutritional access and information. Why do we not equally condemn those who relentlessly push unhealthy products?
A medical system should be about addressing medical needs, not moralizing who requires treatment. Preventable causes should be addressed, but, again, without the whole self righteous garb. People are quick to condemn the overweight, but ignore the myriad conditions that could be symptomatic of. The superficiality and callousness is astounding. But I guess people are okay with their money going to make outrageous unearned profits so long as the fat, ugly, and poor suffer. Never mind that studies indicate that Americans without insurance have about a 40% higher death risk across the board (which translates to about 45,000 deaths a year) and uninsured children are about 60% more likely to die resulting in about 17,000 deaths.
Having more people insured also means they can get medical help when they need it and don't just get it when they finally stumble into the emergency room as a last resort. This reduces cost (earlier treatment is usually cheaper), and leads to less waiting time for actual emergencies (because those cases don't develop that far). It also leads to the possibility of better preventive care which tends to reduce cost even more and an overall healthier, less stressed population and cheaper healthcare system. The problem is that in this cheaper version certain people tend to think that some others don't deserve healthcare because they can't pay for insurance (or because of preexisting condition, lifetime limits, or whatever). And that despite the more altruistic system costing less overall than the technically fairer system. Our biases and prejudices are sometimes hard to shake off even if it would lead to overall better results for everyone.
I am myself poor. Like extremely poor. Make less than 12k$ a year (helping kids with their homeworks is actually a gakky job, money wise). Yet, I still manage to weight only 220 pounds, have 5% body fat, train at the gym that I can afford 4 times a week, training using safe fitness programs, eat only rice and fish meat and, beside the occasional flu, I am in perfect health. People seem to be looking for excuses. When you think about the notion of responsability as something immoral, it's because you yourself lack willpower. Like a lot.
I eat rice two times a day, and fish meat in the morning.
I drink alcohol only once a year, on christmas.
Beside buying two time a year a new unit or paint for w40k, I don't spend my money on useless things.
My gym membership only cost me 12$ a month. Yeah, it's a really basic gym, but it's what I can afford.
It's hard, but it's still within the reach of any human to live like I live. And if you ever need a motivation to help you, just remember that it's extremely cheap to live like that. People should receive help because of the random injustice of life, not because they just can't control themselve. It's about being an adult.
When you find yourself in front of the desire for cigarettes, alcohol, junk food or whatever, just ask yourself :
1-Do I need that gak ?
2-How much worktime does the cost of this thing represent ?
3-Will I actually feel better after it ? Or worse ?
You'll be surprised, but since I started my actual life time, I lost a lot of weight, built up a lot of muscle, and I seriously don't regret alcohol, junk food and cigarettes. In fact, I feel way better than when I was using these gaks. Believe me, it feels way better being healthy and having a wallet that's filled with cash, even if it's just a little.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: People don't generally learn from dying. They just die.
And if healthy people don't have to subsidize unhealthy people, I think poor people shouldn't have to subsidize multi-billion dollar corporations and tax cuts for the rich
We all end up with our tax dollars going to stuff that doesn't benefit us. The trade off is tax dollars going to stuff that does.
No one should subsidize corporations, regardless of their responsability towards their health. These two subjects have no connection whatsoever.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote: Listen, I work 40 hours a week. I am pretty unhealthy. I am also pretty depressed on a daily basis because of my job and my life. I have had to take care of/teach others how to take care of 5 deaths in the past 6 months. Most people don't see, let alone prepare, that many dead bodies in a lifetime. I also don't make enough money to pay for a gym membership on my days off or health insurance to get medication for my depression. I cannot pay it out of pocket with rent, gas, uniforms, food, and other essentials that I need for life.
If I want to go home and eat a pizza or some tacos in order to make myself feel better, I am going to do it and you can take your self righteousness somewhere else.
Considering the fact you live in the USA, I think you actually need to get a free pass. The USA have a lower minimum wage and have greater intergenerationnal and class inequalities and, frankly, your food is really full of fat (never tasted anything like that anywhere else on the planet), so your hardshipst might be normal. But in Canada, especially in Center and Eastern Canada, we have no excuses.
Indirect benefit of paying for other peoples healthcare; you're not surrounded by dead people. More realistically you're not trapped in a health system in which being poor is a death sentence, which even the rich should care about because literally anyone can wind up poor for innumerable reasons. Market crash, bad investments, lay offs. People making bad health choices can have those costs mitigated in a number of ways, like taxes on tobacco and alcohol to offset the costs of lung cancer and liver disease.
Indirect benefit for paying for the subsidizing of business; improved economic growth by mitigating the risk of new or ongoing ventures. Oil and energy are super cheap in the US compared to much of the rest of the world, and that's because we subsidize coal and oil with billions of dollars every year. Cheap energy in general helps everyone. This can backfire sure, like how the structures of food subsidizes make it hard for small farmers to get by, because specific ideas aren't always good just cause the general idea is.
The point is stop complaining about how tax dollars are spent just because you don't see an immediate benefit in your life and actually look at policy outcomes.
Rice and "fish meat" is literally not a balanced diet. Long term, you'd be feeling the effects of vitamin C deficiency pretty hardcore, which can cause weakened immune systems as well as dental issues, requiring increased visits to medical facilities. Stop misusing my tax dollars for your unhealthy lifestyle.
Oh, but I do notice that you're spending $12 on a gym membership when you could be running and lifting cinderblocks for free. I get that you kids are addicted to luxury goods nowadays, but you REALLY should be spending that on a couple oranges or some vitamin C tablets or something.
If you ever need a motivation to help you, just remember that it's extremely cheap to live like that. People should receive help because of the random injustice of life, not because they just can't control themselves. It's about being an adult.
When you find yourself in front of the desire for being able to ask if a bro even lifts on the internet, just ask yourself :
1-Do I need that gak ?
2-How much worktime does the cost of this thing represent ?
3-Will I actually feel better after it ? Or worse ?
Also, get yourself some goddamned vitamin C. We do bootstraps here, not handouts. Sheesh.
EDIT: Forgot the underscores. Seriously, I can't believe we're not doing this still.
Khornate25 wrote: I am myself poor. Like extremely poor. Make less than 12k$ a year (helping kids with their homeworks is actually a gakky job, money wise). Yet, I still manage to weight only 220 pounds, have 5% body fat, train at the gym that I can afford 4 times a week, training using safe fitness programs, eat only rice and fish meat and, beside the occasional flu, I am in perfect health. People seem to be looking for excuses. When you think about the notion of responsability as something immoral, it's because you yourself lack willpower. Like a lot.
I'm betting you are young, without spouse or children, under 30, and dont work 40+ hours a week and arent in school full time? It's relatively easy to be fit when you are naturally healthy, young, and have lots of time, people in such situations that are rabidly unfit are a small minority. It gets difficult when family and work squeeze out time and money for gyms and exercise and the inevitable march of time takes tolls on bodies. Social and psychological factors also play a very strong role and it takes more than simple willpower to kickstart that sort of thing for most people. If your spouse for instance lives the lardbutt life, its gonna be much harder for you to break it successfully than it would otherwise.
If you're 220 with only 5% body fat and are in the gym 4 times a week, you're bigger, stronger, and fitter than the overwhelmingly vast majority of humans on the planet. Holding everyone to such a standard is simply unrealistic.
Ive dropped a hundred pounds off my peak weight, I am out walking every day and engaging in drills, pt, and fencing combatives 3-4 nights a week and 6-8 hours a week generally, sometimes more. My diet during weekdays is almost entirely fruits and veggies with two unbreaded chicken tenders a day, for about a 1500-1700cal a day diet. But thats only possible because I have no other concerns but me, myself, and I outside of work, and am still relatively young and without any major health issues. The same cannot be said of many people across the nation.
Khornate25 wrote: I still manage to weight only 220 pounds, have 5% body fat...eat only rice and fish meat
I eat rice two times a day, and fish meat in the morning.
Don't believe you. I'm 160, about 4% (I bounce around between about 3.8 and 4.5) and eat 3000 calories a day 30/30/40 carbs/fat/protein and it's a real struggle to maintain my weight. Unless you're eating VAST quantities in those two meals, I don't believe you could sustain that size at that bodyfat. Well, unless you have a pretty rare medical condition.
Additionally, since people with bodyfat at that kind of level probably represent less than 0.01% of the planet's population (to be fair you can probably stick an extra couple zeros after the point) trying to use ourselves as examples and preaching to others about fitness and dedication to it makes us utter, utter dickheads.
Khornate25 wrote: I still manage to weight only 220 pounds, have 5% body fat...eat only rice and fish meat
I eat rice two times a day, and fish meat in the morning.
Don't believe you. I'm 160, about 4% (I bounce around between about 3.8 and 4.5) and eat 3000 calories a day 30/30/40 carbs/fat/protein and it's a real struggle to maintain my weight. Unless you're eating VAST quantities in those two meals, I don't believe you could sustain that size at that bodyfat. Well, unless you have a pretty rare medical condition.
Additionally, since people with bodyfat at that kind of level probably represent less than 0.01% of the planet's population (to be fair you can probably stick an extra couple zeros after the point) trying to use ourselves as examples and preaching to others about fitness and dedication to it makes us utter, utter dickheads.
No, it's just me me being sick of fat people finding excuses for their lazyness and their ugliness.
jmurph wrote:Yeah, you are also probably both young males. See where you are at in 20-30 years.
28 years old. It's called being healthy and active. Try it once and a while.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The human body require a minimum of 20 minutes of light exercices (push-up or jogging, your choice) per day, or three hours of medium to intense muscular exercice per week, to stay healthy. If you can't manage to do that, you're the definition of lazyness itself. And no, I'm not being a dill weed. You're just being pathetic and refuse to take responsability for your personnal gakk. Grow up.
No. Your diet is not healthy for numerous reasons already cited and your success story based upon bootstraps and self-presumed moral fiber is coming across as trite and more than a little unbelievable.
Not to mention really off-topic.
(Slightly more) on topic, you do not sound like you pay the majority of taxes, so as someone who's basically a rounding error on any sort of economic reports, I'm genuinely not sure why you really care.
daedalus wrote: No. Your diet is not healthy for numerous reasons already cited and your success story based upon bootstraps and self-presumed moral fiber is coming across as trite and more than a little unbelievable.
Not to mention really off-topic.
(Slightly more) on topic, you do not sound like you pay the majority of taxes, so as someone who's basically a rounding error on any sort of economic reports, I'm genuinely not sure why you really care.
also, making 12k a year, unless he's living off the land in the boonies, then a whole slew of other important life things like housing and transportation are almost certainly being heavily subsidized by others in this case ...
28 years old is still young for someone in the westernized world. Like I said, Get back to me when you hit 50 and see if "staying fit" is enough. Biologically, stuff goes wrong as you age. Some are preventable, some are not. And just because you look ok on the outside does not mean everything is okay under the hood.
Condemning "ugliness" with "laziness" in addressing obesity shows a terrible lack of information on the causes and a superficial moralizing that has no place in health care or any discussion of governance. An acceptance of government action based on some arbitrary inherent "morality" rather than reasoned policy goals is an invitation to abuse.
daedalus wrote: No. Your diet is not healthy for numerous reasons already cited and your success story based upon bootstraps and self-presumed moral fiber is coming across as trite and more than a little unbelievable.
It's unquestionably a series of lies or extreme exagerations.
It's besides the point anyway. Even if it was a piece of cake for anyone and everyone to keep themselves fit, it still wouldn't justify telling the ones who didn't to put their hands in their pockets or suck it up and die and you'd still need to decide exactly what you give priority to when healthy exercise meets self inflicted health problem, which, lets be honest, it does eventually for every person who engages in lots of exercise over a long period of time.
Of course it's unbelievable to people who simply don't want to make the effort of living it. Everything is unbelievable when someone else succeed where you fail.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
daedalus wrote: No. Your diet is not healthy for numerous reasons already cited and your success story based upon bootstraps and self-presumed moral fiber is coming across as trite and more than a little unbelievable.
Not to mention really off-topic.
(Slightly more) on topic, you do not sound like you pay the majority of taxes, so as someone who's basically a rounding error on any sort of economic reports, I'm genuinely not sure why you really care.
I care about justice. Unresponsible people shouldn't have access to public healthcare. That's for people suffering from serious conditions on which they have no control whatsoever (brain cancer, lung cancer being the result of secondary smoke, genetic diseases, autism, etc). Justice is an end in itself. Justice is what matter, not the amount of taxes I pay. Maybe you should care less about money and more about it.
Alcoholics, people who smoke, people who use drugs that damage health (like heroin, crack, cocaine, etc.) and people who overfeed themselve with junk food are irresponsible and should be taught a lesson. Either they adapt, either they disappear. And no amount of poverty justify doing any of those thing. Poverty is not an excuse to drink beer up to the point that your kidneys and liver simply shut down. Nor is it an excuse to plant a filthy needle in your vein. Regardless of how much taxes I pay, I can still see injustice for what it is : not be held responsible for your poor choices. Do you see myself using my low income as an excuse to run downtown and buy drugs, eat McDonalds and drink till I pass out ? How can that be so hard ?
You do understand what mental health is right? Addiction is a disease and people should be treated for it. So your argument against smokers and alcoholics goes right out the window. Also there are people with mental health issues that rely on smoking as their way to center themselves.
I dare you to take a cigarette away from anybody with schizophrenia and tell them they have to stop. I don't care how in shape you are, that will hurt.
Khornate25 wrote: Of course it's unbelievable to people who simply don't want to make the effort of living it. Everything is unbelievable when someone else succeed where you fail.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
daedalus wrote: No. Your diet is not healthy for numerous reasons already cited and your success story based upon bootstraps and self-presumed moral fiber is coming across as trite and more than a little unbelievable.
Not to mention really off-topic.
(Slightly more) on topic, you do not sound like you pay the majority of taxes, so as someone who's basically a rounding error on any sort of economic reports, I'm genuinely not sure why you really care.
I care about justice. Unresponsible people shouldn't have access to public healthcare. That's for people suffering from serious conditions on which they have no control whatsoever (brain cancer, lung cancer being the result of secondary smoke, genetic diseases, autism, etc). Justice is an end in itself. Justice is what matter, not the amount of taxes I pay. Maybe you should care less about money and more about it.
Alcoholics, people who smoke, people who use drugs that damage health (like heroin, crack, cocaine, etc.) and people who overfeed themselve with junk food are irresponsible and should be taught a lesson. Either they adapt, either they disappear. And no amount of poverty justify doing any of those thing. Poverty is not an excuse to drink beer up to the point that your kidneys and liver simply shut down. Nor is it an excuse to plant a filthy needle in your vein. Regardless of how much taxes I pay, I can still see injustice for what it is : not be held responsible for your poor choices. Do you see myself using my low income as an excuse to run downtown and buy drugs, eat McDonalds and drink till I pass out ? How can that be so hard ?
r/iamverybadass
Calm down, dude. Rage is bad for the heart. Don't want to be irresponsible and use our free healthcare up now do we?
Your incomplete diet and strenuous workout is just as likely to make me responsible for you poor choices through my tax dollars as my tubby smoking pal who eats fast food five times a week.
Do you see myself using my low income as an excuse to run downtown and buy drugs, eat McDonalds and drink till I pass out ? How can that be so hard ?
No, I see your concept of 'justice' is selective enough to cast down your petty judgement toward others while at the same time, you must too enjoy the exact same benefits that you've placed on the other side of this thin little line you've drawn in the sand. Maybe it's different there, but here in the US, you cannot afford to exist without aid on $12000 basically anywhere in the US that I am aware of, and I grew up in a patch of houses surrounded by dirt farmers.
Further, as a former smoker who quit, I can actually attest to just how hard it truly is. Do you even know, bro? They're not fething around when they claim it's literally one of the hardest things to stop doing. Do me a favor: Go look in the mirror, and then stop breathing. That feeling of need you get when you start to change colors is basically what you feel in waves. It's truly a horrible thing to start. The problem is that there's no words in English that can convey properly how hard that is to anyone who doesn't already know. It's the price of experience.
Your justice is utter garbage without compassion. The genuinely strong bear the capacity for magnanimity. At least think about it a while, or try to.
LordofHats wrote: I've lived in some of the cheapest parts of the US, where rent can be as low as $390 a month and I couldn't live on $12000.
Your justice is utter garbage without compassion.
If strength is justice is weakness a crime? ~ some anime
Getting philosophical up in here
My rent is $325 a month. That is including my $25 a month pet fee.
Rent is still too damn high!
Are in in section 8? I lived in a place about 10 years ago that was that high that was in the "metro" east st louis area that was largely subsidized housing. We paid a bit more, but that was for a two bedroom. We technically weren't using section 8, but it was an area that was eligible. It turned out to be a really mellow place, but I still spent a lot of time peering out the windows when my girlfriend visited.
skyth wrote: Other than the fact that profit is what is left over after the money is spent on expansion and R&D, etc as well. The fact remains that the product cost less to make than is charged for it, thus it is 'waste' as far as government services are concerned.
If the government charged a $100 fee for something that only cost $90 to do, there would be people up in arms about that. However, if a private enterprise took over and did the same thing, the same people wouldn't have an issue with it. This lack of a need to turn a profit makes, in equal situations, government more efficient than private enterprises.
Plus government doesn't need to pay million dollar salaries to executives. If government leaders were paid the way that corporate executives are paid, there would be a major uproar. Heck, consider the complaint that teachers are overpaid when people don't complain about corporate managers that have 25 direct reports being paid a lot more than teachers are...
I actually wrote out a much longer answer that went in to the nitty gritty of your mistakes in definitions etc, and I deleted it. It was a bit wood for the trees, so instead here's a simple example that will hopefully show you where you're thinking has astray.
To take your example, consider a product that costs $100 and sells for $100. By your argument this is efficiency, there is no profit 'waste'. Then the guy who makes the product realises he can make the exact same product for $90, just by improving the process and saving himself a lot of time. The same product, sold for the same price, now has a $10 'waste' according to your economic model, because the guy making it is using less time to make the product.
This should hopefully show you that differentiating profit from any other kind of income leads to some very strange conclusions.
I do agree with your general point at the end about incomes of high end managers in the corporate sector. There are chronic levels of over-payment that are unrelated to the scarcity of their skillset or their performance. But it is quite unrelated to the rest.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just Tony wrote: And if you got paid the same for ZERO responsibility or for taking ALL the responsibility, what would you do? Human nature is to take the path of least resistance, and while someone may be ambitious enough to take that responsibility with next to no compensation, 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of humanity wouldn't.
If people were simple, selfish economic agents who exchange responsibility for income as you presume, then why would anyone become a general and have responsibility for tens of thousands of lives, when they could instead take a job running the widget factory and earn more without ever having to send soldiers to their deaths?
So no, it isn't just about responsibility. And in fact, responsibility, otherwise known as power, is something people chase simply for its own sake. So while it is true that responsibility commands a greater pay packet we can chuck out the idea that the reward is a natural function of the market. And once we do that we can look at how much that level of reward has changed in the last 50 years. The average CEO earned around 20 times the average worker in 1965. That ratio went on a sudden, dramatic increase, peaking around 350 times as much, and is currently around 275 times as much.
This is not the product of rational market forces.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: Let 'em be a big pile of fat. As long as they don't expect my tax dollars to subsidize the resulting health care costs.
Who cares what they expect. It will happen, when they have a heart attack society will not say 'you don't have enough money of your own, and your lifestyle was too unhealthy for us to use government money to save you, so instead we're going to watch you writhe in agony taking your last breath'. It just isn't going to happen. People don't work like that.
Society will help people in need, even if they got there with bad choices. This is one of those basic realities people just need to accept and then start to account for.
Are you aware of how much military officers make vs. enlisted? Or for that matter, how much military officers make vs. similar jobs in the private sector? Still guided by compensation, and glory can be a compensation.
Khornate25 wrote: 28 years old. It's called being healthy and active. Try it once and a while.
Heh. I was fit and healthy when I was 28. A more demanding job, family life cutting in to the time I would have once used to exercise, and basic metabolism changes have led to me putting on weight.
I'm not having a go at you. Good on you for working at your health and being proud of your results. Just... be a bit more humble. Don't condemn people you don't know, and don't assume what's working for you now will work for you forever, or even be important to you forever.
And remember, it would be just as easy for other people to criticise you for income level, assume it was because you are lazy or whatever, and it would be unfair and arrogant of them.
Khornate25 wrote: Of course it's unbelievable to people who simply don't want to make the effort of living it. Everything is unbelievable when someone else succeed where you fail.
It's unbelievable to someone who's actually in great shape, and notable that you wont address the basic biological impossibility of eating two meals a day, one of rice, and one of rice and fish, whilst maintaining a 220lbs, 5% body fat physique, unless those meals are absolutely enormous. It feels like you're probably in decent shape but have massively exaggerated to try and make a point of how easy it would be to stay in shape on the cheap without actually knowing the point at which it would abundantly clear to anyone in the know that you're making it up.
And again, I'd ask if it's ok to use public money to help ill people when healthy lifestyle collides with self-inflicted injury.
nfe wrote: And again, I'd ask if it's ok to use public money to help ill people when healthy lifestyle collides with self-inflicted injury.
Young people who engage in a lot of physical activity have their own costs. I used GPs and physio for a range of sporting injuries back when I was active, I don't use anything now that I'm not.
And obesity is pretty likely to give you a heart attack in your 50s, and you go quickly. People who live in to old age suffer slower deaths like cancer and dementia, which cost way more to treat/delay.
I think there's probably a fair case that a healthy population that ages into their 80s, 90s and beyond costs the health system a lot more than fat population who mostly drop dead overnight in their 50s. There's a lot of simplification of the health of obesity in there, and obviously the goal of public health isn't just cost but also quality and duration of life, but the point is that 'fat people cost more and my tax dollars shouldn't pay for it' doesn't really hold as a financial argument.
It does hold, of course, as a point of resentment against a group of people that some look down on, though.
nfe wrote: And again, I'd ask if it's ok to use public money to help ill people when healthy lifestyle collides with self-inflicted injury.
Young people who engage in a lot of physical activity have their own costs. I used GPs and physio for a range of sporting injuries back when I was active, I don't use anything now that I'm not.
Certainly. Four guys in my family have played professional rugby, two at international level, and one is still a Scotland international, plus me, my dad, and an uncle all played at a relatively high amateur level - and we've all cost the NHS a lot - ongoing in some cases. My dad is 60 and is still picking up occassional replacement bodyparts as a result of being a very fit man in his 20s... The professionals get looked after by their employers whilst they're still professionals, but they start costing taxpayer coin as soon as they retire/get dropped.
'Fit=cheap' is an absolutely farcical argument that falls apart at the barest hint of scrutiny.
Just Tony wrote: Are you aware of how much military officers make vs. enlisted? Or for that matter, how much military officers make vs. similar jobs in the private sector? Still guided by compensation, and glory can be a compensation.
Yeah, but the multiple is in single digits. A general isn't earning 275 times as much as a private, obviously. So the question then is why, when CEO remuneration used to be just fine as being 20 times the average employee, and public sector employees do fine with multiples lower than that, did the private sector suddenly need to offer remuneration 275 times more than the average worker just to get someone to take on that responsibility.
And the answer, of course, is that people being reluctant to take on the responsibility without greater remuneration has almost nothing to do with it.
And yes, people being guided by things other than money, like glory, is true. It's also the very fething point I was explaining to you.
skyth wrote: Other than the fact that profit is what is left over after the money is spent on expansion and R&D, etc as well. The fact remains that the product cost less to make than is charged for it, thus it is 'waste' as far as government services are concerned.
If the government charged a $100 fee for something that only cost $90 to do, there would be people up in arms about that. However, if a private enterprise took over and did the same thing, the same people wouldn't have an issue with it. This lack of a need to turn a profit makes, in equal situations, government more efficient than private enterprises.
Plus government doesn't need to pay million dollar salaries to executives. If government leaders were paid the way that corporate executives are paid, there would be a major uproar. Heck, consider the complaint that teachers are overpaid when people don't complain about corporate managers that have 25 direct reports being paid a lot more than teachers are...
I actually wrote out a much longer answer that went in to the nitty gritty of your mistakes in definitions etc, and I deleted it. It was a bit wood for the trees, so instead here's a simple example that will hopefully show you where you're thinking has astray.
To take your example, consider a product that costs $100 and sells for $100. By your argument this is efficiency, there is no profit 'waste'. Then the guy who makes the product realises he can make the exact same product for $90, just by improving the process and saving himself a lot of time. The same product, sold for the same price, now has a $10 'waste' according to your economic model, because the guy making it is using less time to make the product.
This should hopefully show you that differentiating profit from any other kind of income leads to some very strange conclusions.
Not really. The original product had that $10 of waste since there was a way to make it cheaper. If a process can be improved, that means that there is some sort of waste there. I never said that if you are making something for cost that there isn't waste in there, but that if you have profit there is a different sort of waste. There are forms of waste other than profit.
Again, if a government was always running a profit and building up cash reserves then people would be up in arms about how wasteful it is. They would want some of that 'profit' back in the form of lower taxes.
Khornate25 wrote: Of course it's unbelievable to people who simply don't want to make the effort of living it. Everything is unbelievable when someone else succeed where you fail.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
daedalus wrote: No. Your diet is not healthy for numerous reasons already cited and your success story based upon bootstraps and self-presumed moral fiber is coming across as trite and more than a little unbelievable.
Not to mention really off-topic.
(Slightly more) on topic, you do not sound like you pay the majority of taxes, so as someone who's basically a rounding error on any sort of economic reports, I'm genuinely not sure why you really care.
I care about justice. Unresponsible people shouldn't have access to public healthcare. That's for people suffering from serious conditions on which they have no control whatsoever (brain cancer, lung cancer being the result of secondary smoke, genetic diseases, autism, etc). Justice is an end in itself. Justice is what matter, not the amount of taxes I pay. Maybe you should care less about money and more about it.
Alcoholics, people who smoke, people who use drugs that damage health (like heroin, crack, cocaine, etc.) and people who overfeed themselve with junk food are irresponsible and should be taught a lesson. Either they adapt, either they disappear. And no amount of poverty justify doing any of those thing. Poverty is not an excuse to drink beer up to the point that your kidneys and liver simply shut down. Nor is it an excuse to plant a filthy needle in your vein. Regardless of how much taxes I pay, I can still see injustice for what it is : not be held responsible for your poor choices. Do you see myself using my low income as an excuse to run downtown and buy drugs, eat McDonalds and drink till I pass out ? How can that be so hard ?
Surely this is a troll for he is strong and terrible and subsists on fish and bile.
I have a kinda weird opinion on this. I am, personally, far-left, but all I really want to see is the human race united under one leader. I doesn't matter to me what that leader thinks, so longs as all living humans agree with them. That is the only way our species will ever put aside their conflicts.
LordofHats wrote: I've lived in some of the cheapest parts of the US, where rent can be as low as $390 a month and I couldn't live on $12000.
Your justice is utter garbage without compassion.
If strength is justice is weakness a crime? ~ some anime
Getting philosophical up in here
My rent is $325 a month. That is including my $25 a month pet fee.
Rent is still too damn high!
Are in in section 8? I lived in a place about 10 years ago that was that high that was in the "metro" east st louis area that was largely subsidized housing. We paid a bit more, but that was for a two bedroom. We technically weren't using section 8, but it was an area that was eligible. It turned out to be a really mellow place, but I still spent a lot of time peering out the windows when my girlfriend visited.
Nope, not section 8. I have the lowest rent in town for sure, got pretty lucky there. But to be fair, it's not the greatest place to live.
EmberlordofFire8 wrote: I have a kinda weird opinion on this. I am, personally, far-left, but all I really want to see is the human race united under one leader. I doesn't matter to me what that leader thinks, so longs as all living humans agree with them. That is the only way our species will ever put aside their conflicts.
This is interesting. First, do you believe that this is possible outside a theoretical perspective? If not, how do you reconcile this with tyranny by the majority?
At it's core, this seems to be a kind of messiahism which is extreme authoritarianism. Consider that agreement seems to imply that they could be agreeing out of subjugation.
I don't think the idea of "one world government" is particularly authoritarian, or libertarian. For example a global confederation could be highly libertarian, regulating little more than the basic parameters of economics and law. It could be highly authoritarian, dictating a moral or religious system.
Despite the often associated dooms day and conspiracy theories as a base concept its no different from any other government structure and what exactly it is depends on the underlying political theory on which it is founded. Of course that's just theory. In practical terms I don't see how you get a one world government lacking seriously overwhelming authoritarian measures. As similar as the people of the world are, the terms in which we engage that world are still too different for a practical global government to form.
EmberlordofFire8 wrote: I have a kinda weird opinion on this. I am, personally, far-left, but all I really want to see is the human race united under one leader. I doesn't matter to me what that leader thinks, so longs as all living humans agree with them. That is the only way our species will ever put aside their conflicts.
This is interesting. First, do you believe that this is possible outside a theoretical perspective? If not, how do you reconcile this with tyranny by the majority?
At it's core, this seems to be a kind of messiahism which is extreme authoritarianism. Consider that agreement seems to imply that they could be agreeing out of subjugation.
Well, if not theoretical, it is highly unlikely. Firstly, it would probably require millions of humans to be killed, probably leaving a dysfunctional society. Although, to be fair, all they would need would be enough people to keep one small area stable. It could work with the mars colonisation program Musk has proposed, but that would rely on them cutting off all contact with earth and, more importantly, the companies and nations funding their expedition.
skyth wrote: Not really. The original product had that $10 of waste since there was a way to make it cheaper. If a process can be improved, that means that there is some sort of waste there. I never said that if you are making something for cost that there isn't waste in there, but that if you have profit there is a different sort of waste. There are forms of waste other than profit.
Again, if a government was always running a profit and building up cash reserves then people would be up in arms about how wasteful it is. They would want some of that 'profit' back in the form of lower taxes.
You've tried to define waste as anything short of maximum possible efficiency, including it seems all future efficiency and technological improvements. This means anything short of a future utopia of dyson spheres and replicators producing anything we want as we think the instant we think of it would be 99.99999% waste. It means no longer thinking of productivity in any kind of sensible way. 'Waste' can only be measured against existing capability, and improving that capability should be talked of in terms of improving capability, not reducing waste.
So again, think about if a worker himself came up with a new way of doing the process. The old system wasn't wasteful - it was the best way anyone knew at that time of doing the process. But now the process can be done $10 cheaper. The worker makes 10% more on every unit (11.11% for the pedants out there). This isn't waste. This is an improved process making the worker richer.
Then consider instead that the worker hires an engineer to figure out a way to do the process better. A deal is struck so that any gain is split evenly. The engineer figures out how to make the process 10% cheaper, and the worker makes 5% more out of every unit he makes, and the engineer takes 5% but has no further role in the process. Is the 5% to the worker waste? The 5% to the engineer?
Then consider the engineer sees the worker toiling away working in the old way. He sees how the process can be made 10% better. He says to the worker to come work for him, and he'll give him 5% more than he makes right now. This means the worker gets 5% more, and the engineer makes 5% profit. Is any of that now waste?
LordofHats wrote: I don't think the idea of "one world government" is particularly authoritarian, or libertarian. For example a global confederation could be highly libertarian, regulating little more than the basic parameters of economics and law. It could be highly authoritarian, dictating a moral or religious system.
Despite the often associated dooms day and conspiracy theories as a base concept its no different from any other government structure and what exactly it is depends on the underlying political theory on which it is founded. Of course that's just theory. In practical terms I don't see how you get a one world government lacking seriously overwhelming authoritarian measures. As similar as the people of the world are, the terms in which we engage that world are still too different for a practical global government to form.
Yeah, that's why I was asking if this was a theoretical example or not. A appreciate that both of your responses contemplate the real world obstacles and wish more of the discussion on these issues was as well thought out!
Continuing on this strand, I don't know that a unified government is even particularly desirable at this point. So far, large governments are struggling to deal effectively with their own issues. The benefit of a centralized governance would be consistency, but since none of the largest players seem to have the right answers, applying dysfunctional policies globally would be a net loss. Likewise, it seems that such a structure currently would likely exaggerate some of the biggest problems related to consolidation of wealth, power, and, perhaps ironically, exclusion.
I have no time for 'authoritarian - libertarian' scales. It's an absurd oversimplification that either puts 'it should be illegal to be LGBT' and 'it should be illegal to discriminate against LGBT people' in a uselessly broad sin bin for muh statists, or else puts 'it should be illegal to discriminate against LGBT people' and 'the state should permit being LGBT and also permit private businesses to discriminate against LGBT people' in a uselessly broad 'anything but Hitler and Stalin' group.
Put 'libertarian' in the middle between supremacism and social justice (inb4 edgelord channers), and you've got an axis that can distinguish between the distinct positions without setting up progressives and minarchists to get into loggerheads over 'no, YOU'RE the one aligned with the fascists'.
my tax dollars 
