Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:

Right... more government is the answer!

Why don't you just say it... we need more socialism... amirite?

I could see it benefiting you in some ways.

Personally, I wish we'd just kill off the 'buzz-word' culture that surrounds discussion on topics such as these. Yes, I know many people (particularly our American cousins - no offence) find them useful as a form of intellectual short-hand, but they really, really don't help people to understand complex issues. And why should they? That's not what they're for. They are for people who already understand the concepts being discussed. Unfortunately, stupid people also find them very easy to parrot, as it avoids the need for a more detailed discussion (and therefore, examination) of their views, which basically boil down to 'I am afraid' or 'I am enjoying the thrill of victory'.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone actually defend that as being helpful outside of its use as a tool for issue marketing (which in the end it's both a tool and creation of marketers, not politicians or the electorate.) It's a truly insidious creation of the modern media culture, but it works so god damn well that I don't see it ever vanishing again.

TheHammer wrote:


But, yeah, until you show me a libertarian that believes climate change is real and has an actual solution I will never take them seriously. Until then I'll just continue to mock them for saying they care about things like racial equality, but refusing to do anything to actually make those things real.
.

I'm a Libertarian. I believe in climate change. I don't have a solution though. It's a problem that will solve itself eventually; We just won't like that particular solution. I also don't believe in god, and I think that Obama was a giant mistake. So was Bush. So was the Federal Reserve Bank.

 Lordhat wrote:

TheHammer wrote:


But, yeah, until you show me a libertarian that believes climate change is real and has an actual solution I will never take them seriously. Until then I'll just continue to mock them for saying they care about things like racial equality, but refusing to do anything to actually make those things real.
.

I'm a Libertarian. I believe in climate change. I don't have a solution though. It's a problem that will solve itself eventually; We just won't like that particular solution. I also don't believe in god, and I think that Obama was a giant mistake. So was Bush. So was the Federal Reserve Bank.

"Things make me angry, I have no solutions." -Libertarianism

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Lordhat wrote:

TheHammer wrote:


But, yeah, until you show me a libertarian that believes climate change is real and has an actual solution I will never take them seriously. Until then I'll just continue to mock them for saying they care about things like racial equality, but refusing to do anything to actually make those things real.
.

I'm a Libertarian. I believe in climate change. I don't have a solution though. It's a problem that will solve itself eventually; We just won't like that particular solution. I also don't believe in god, and I think that Obama was a giant mistake. So was Bush. So was the Federal Reserve Bank.

"Things make me angry, I have no solutions." -Libertarianism

One thing I don't understand Shuma. Everytime you quote me it's to deliver a backhanded insult. I haven't addressed you or quoted/ debated you in over a year, trying to live and let live, but you won't let up. Do me a favor and do the same?

He says a few good things, but I have a lot of problems with his stance. Among these, I think my main problem with Mr. Jillette's speech is his assumption that human beings are basically good. He seems to think simply thinking you're acting in the best interest of the human race means you are. His argument that Presidents Bush and Obama are acting out of sincere dedication to the good of the people could be extended to just about anyone--say, Hitler.

 Lordhat wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Lordhat wrote:

TheHammer wrote:


But, yeah, until you show me a libertarian that believes climate change is real and has an actual solution I will never take them seriously. Until then I'll just continue to mock them for saying they care about things like racial equality, but refusing to do anything to actually make those things real.
.

I'm a Libertarian. I believe in climate change. I don't have a solution though. It's a problem that will solve itself eventually; We just won't like that particular solution. I also don't believe in god, and I think that Obama was a giant mistake. So was Bush. So was the Federal Reserve Bank.

"Things make me angry, I have no solutions." -Libertarianism

One thing I don't understand Shuma. Everytime you quote me it's to deliver a backhanded insult. I haven't addressed you or quoted/ debated you in over a year, trying to live and let live, but you won't let up. Do me a favor and do the same?

I apologize, I'll try to keep it friendly. I promise I'm not actually targeting you. With a few exceptions (frazzled, for instance) I don't even pay attention to the identity of the person I'm responding to (seriously, I actually get people mixed up a lot because of it). Just their post. If it seems like I snark a lot it's likely just that you have a consistency in your posts that for some reason or another causes me to be snarky. I'll do my best to be more mindful of when I'm doing it too consistently.

 Lordhat wrote:

One thing I don't understand Shuma. Everytime you quote me it's to deliver a backhanded insult.

Perhaps you should stop saying things that open you to insults. Of course, that would mean not being a stereotypical libertarian.

 deathholydeath wrote:
His argument that Presidents Bush and Obama are acting out of sincere dedication to the good of the people could be extended to just about anyone--say, Hitler.

You know who made bad arguments? Nazis.

All people who make bad arguments are Nazis.

 deathholydeath wrote:
He says a few good things, but I have a lot of problems with his stance. Among these, I think my main problem with Mr. Jillette's speech is his assumption that human beings are basically good. He seems to think simply thinking you're acting in the best interest of the human race means you are. His argument that Presidents Bush and Obama are acting out of sincere dedication to the good of the people could be extended to just about anyone--say, Hitler.

11 hours and 38 minutes for Hitler to appear, good job everybody.

No offense Melissia, but you missed the point. again. Government is Government is Government, my examples are not valid because I was speaking of an out of control local Government?

While I know everybody likes to debate about the Government at the federal level, it starts at home. Local races and Government is much more part of your every day life than the Federal is. Or at least that is how it should be for the average person.

The same things happen on every level.

 whembly wrote:

Right... more government is the answer!

Why don't you just say it... we need more socialism... amirite?

I don't see how a society where the freedom of all is defined by the freedom of each individuals, instituted by it's governement's efforts to provide the means to safeguard their interests and move through the different classes of said society whenever they wish, can be a bad thing.

Or did you just post without knowing what socialism is?

 d-usa wrote:

 deathholydeath wrote:
He says a few good things, but I have a lot of problems with his stance. Among these, I think my main problem with Mr. Jillette's speech is his assumption that human beings are basically good. He seems to think simply thinking you're acting in the best interest of the human race means you are. His argument that Presidents Bush and Obama are acting out of sincere dedication to the good of the people could be extended to just about anyone--say, Hitler.

11 hours and 38 minutes for Hitler to appear, good job everybody.

We are nothing if not an ambitious set of go-getters and outside-the-box thinkers. There are Nazis outside the box. Our box.

 Ahtman wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 deathholydeath wrote:
He says a few good things, but I have a lot of problems with his stance. Among these, I think my main problem with Mr. Jillette's speech is his assumption that human beings are basically good. He seems to think simply thinking you're acting in the best interest of the human race means you are. His argument that Presidents Bush and Obama are acting out of sincere dedication to the good of the people could be extended to just about anyone--say, Hitler.

11 hours and 38 minutes for Hitler to appear, good job everybody.

We are nothing if not an ambitious set of go-getters and outside-the-box thinkers. There are Nazis outside the box. Our box.

This get you an exalt, sir!

 dogma wrote:

 deathholydeath wrote:
His argument that Presidents Bush and Obama are acting out of sincere dedication to the good of the people could be extended to just about anyone--say, Hitler.

You know who made bad arguments? Nazis.

All people who make bad arguments are Nazis.

Ahtman wrote:We are nothing if not an ambitious set of go-getters and outside-the-box thinkers. There are Nazis outside the box. Our box.

Just doing my best to keep OT in character.

 Lordhat wrote:


I'm a Libertarian. I believe in climate change. I don't have a solution though. It's a problem that will solve itself eventually; We just won't like that particular solution. I also don't believe in god, and I think that Obama was a giant mistake. So was Bush. So was the Federal Reserve Bank.

hssshhhh The Fed was never a bad move...next you'll be telling me we should go to the gold standard and that you're secretly LordofHats too

 whembly wrote:
Right... more government is the answer!

Why don't you just say it... we need more socialism... amirite?

TheHammer gave an interesting and insightful look into the problems of libertarianism... and all you can muster in reply is an empty attack and a repeat of the word socialism

Debate is not shouting slogans.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Right... more government is the answer!

Why don't you just say it... we need more socialism... amirite?

TheHammer gave an interesting and insightful look into the problems of libertarianism... and all you can muster in reply is an empty attack and a repeat of the word socialism

Debate is not shouting slogans.

It is for libertarians. Their ideology doesn't survive scrutiny.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Right... more government is the answer!

Why don't you just say it... we need more socialism... amirite?

TheHammer gave an interesting and insightful look into the problems of libertarianism... and all you can muster in reply is an empty attack and a repeat of the word socialism

Debate is not shouting slogans.

I was snarking on this:

Corporate interests do a lot more to restrict our day to day freedoms and liberties than the government, and without an active democratic government we would be in a much worse place.

This I disagreeing with... hence, my socialism bent...

Tye_Informer wrote:
We need to move toward more Representatives, who all represent less people. Voter turnout is around 25% of the voting age population

Actually voting turnout is much higher than that. In Presidential elections its about 52 or 53% of the population, and in the alternate races its about 37 or 38%.

That said, I do agree that with greater represenation you get greater identification with voters, and a greater drive for politicians to represent the specific needs of their electorate. However, that also leads to greatly expanding the number of voting members, instead of 426 people in the house of reps, you'd have something closer to 7,500. When you consider the complexity that goes into the processes of government with 426 members, attempting the same with 7,500 become vast. It'd be like herding cats.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
This is common in Government sectors. Sector A has a budget of say $100, and near the end of the year, they have only spent $50, so they hurry up and spend $52 on staples and post it notes. This lets the budget office know "hey we need to give these people more money, and they do. It's a very non elaborate way of gaming the system, and pretty much every office in the Government does it. Constantly trying to justify thier existence and employment.

Your understanding of government budgeting processes are about 30 years out of date. And similar processes existed in the private sector until about 40 years ago.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
I think this is where people start to get off track on what it means to have less government in your life. Yes infrastructure for sewage, and fighting fires is great, that is not really intrusive and is rather helpful.

However, when you force an entire neighborhood off septic and to each pay on average $10,000 for putting a sewer line in, even thouth all the properties are large and spaced enough to have septic, and the neighborhood clearly said "no" to the sewer. Then you have a problem.

So your problem isn't with big or small government, but with government making some poor policy.

The answer to your concern isn't smaller government but good government.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
My point is that "more" isn't always "better".

I think at least we need a "recalibration" of goverment (meaning, not necessarily cut everything down, but honest appraisal/review to determine if government is the right answer).

Right, but the counter is just as true - less isn't always better either. What you actually want is good government, which is a concept quite independant of the size of government.

And yeah, there needs to be a recalibration of how you talk about government - starting with all this 'big/small government nonsense'. Stop talking about scale as if that were something that actually means anything, and start talking about the specifics of individual pieces of policy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
I agree with that also...

I just think as a society, it's all to easy to say "let the government do it", when we should really stop and think about it...

When *I* say smaller... I mean by 16Trillion $$$ smaller... what's left is still fething huge.

That $16 trillion isn't the size of government. That's the debt accrued over the life of the government. The size of government in the US is about $3 trillion a year in expenditures (outside of the present increase due to poor economic conditions).

And when you consider that $16 trillion in debt is largely the product of plans to lower the tax base and 'starve the beast', then that idea of 'small government' becomes even more unconvincing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albatross wrote:
It's also why people toss around meaningless terms like 'Big Government', when what they really want is greater personal liberty. Sadly, they've been sold the lie that says you can only have greater personal liberty if you trade it for less public services, even vital ones such as food standards bodies. Now, I'm a Conservative. That does not mean I believe that the entire machinery of the state should be dismantled - such beliefs are not fundamental to being conservative. Anyone who says other wise is a fething liar. Yes, I feel that the NHS does impinge upon our personal liberty to a certain degree. Yes, it costs far too much. No, there isn't enough choice. Because we should always be seeking to advance our personal freedom within reasonable parameters, the NHS should be reformed in order to address these issues.

That doesn't mean I want to tear it down and destroy it.

That was an excellent post.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lordhat wrote:
I believe in climate change. I don't have a solution though. It's a problem that will solve itself eventually; We just won't like that particular solution.

What? Why just give up on the idea of working towards a more agreeable solution? That's nuts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 deathholydeath wrote:
He says a few good things, but I have a lot of problems with his stance. Among these, I think my main problem with Mr. Jillette's speech is his assumption that human beings are basically good. He seems to think simply thinking you're acting in the best interest of the human race means you are. His argument that Presidents Bush and Obama are acting out of sincere dedication to the good of the people could be extended to just about anyone--say, Hitler.

It doesn't mean you can't resist or challenge the person. But it fundamentally changes the way in which you do so. Once you come to understand that a person has positive motivations but is mistaken, then it becomes a debate over how they might be mistaken... instead of a shouting contest over someone being evil in some vaguely defined way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
I was snarking on this:

Corporate interests do a lot more to restrict our day to day freedoms and liberties than the government, and without an active democratic government we would be in a much worse place.

This I disagreeing with... hence, my socialism bent...

See, now that's an argument you're putting forward. We can agree or disagree if his position represents socialism or any notion of bigger government, and debate that. Compare that to your original response.

 sebster wrote:

 Lordhat wrote:
I believe in climate change. I don't have a solution though. It's a problem that will solve itself eventually; We just won't like that particular solution.

What? Why just give up on the idea of working towards a more agreeable solution? That's nuts.

I didn't mention giving up trying to to find a more agreeable solution. I'm open to that. I merely meant that I don't have one personally, and if we don't find one the problem WILL fix itself.

Well, as you implied, it may "fix itself"- in ways which are very expensive and unpleasant for us, if not outright dangerous. The planet isn't going anywhere, and will keep spinning on, but it may become less hospitable to us. And that's an outcome we would be better off avoiding.

 Lordhat wrote:
I didn't mention giving up trying to to find a more agreeable solution. I'm open to that. I merely meant that I don't have one personally, and if we don't find one the problem WILL fix itself.

I don't even understand what 'fix' means in that context. We will spend far more on coming to terms with changing climate conditions than we would have spent on controlling emissions. And a lot more people will be vulnerable to malaria and other tropical diseases as the tropics belt expands. But other than that life will keep on trucking, the rich will be rich, the poor will be poor.

Exactly where 'fix' comes into that I don't know.

 Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
No offense Melissia, but you missed the point. again.

I didn't miss your point, I merely declared it to be pointless.

 Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
my examples are not valid because I was speaking of an out of control local Government?

Because we're talking about the federal government, using local examples doesn't actually link well with what is being talked about. It's like having a topic about Marvel comics and then someone begins talking about batman. Sure they're both comics, but surprisingly enough they're rarely linked up to eachother.

But it does happen! One of my favorite cross-overs, actually.

There is nothing wrong with democratic socialism.

What I always find strange is that people who proclaim liberty as their chief belief seem to ignore the coercive nature of capitalism. It forces people to compete in ways that can be quite dangerous and awful (child labor in the 19th and early 20th century springs to mind), or for those that actually own a business it can force them to outsource jobs to stay competitive.

There is no freedom or liberty in the marketplace, merely a set of coerced choices one can take.

It isn't like the marketplace gave us the weekend, holidays off, worker's comp, workplace safety, overtime, healthcare, education, etc.

And, yeah, LordofHat, my bigger point re climate change is in regards to how 90% of libertarians deny its existence because it is an issue that can not be solved by the marketplace and they would rather stick their heads into the sand than admit their childish ideology doesn't work.

More than any other issue climate change will end up being the most defining and impacting in the next 100-200 years. Ignoring it now is a travesty.