Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Libertarian Paradise in the making?


Off-Topic Discussions

101 to 150 of 199 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gruumash . wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Again, I don't see how you can say the Democrats have provide a 'united front' and the Republicans haven't in the past 20 years.
So you feel that the democratic party does not provide a united front? Yet the Repulicans do? I just want to be clear?

Yes.

50 spineless jellyfish being squeezed into a box is not a united front.

190 possums passing out to the cries of "don't hurt me!" is not a united front.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

Yes.

50 spineless jellyfish being squeezed into a box is not a united front.

190 possums passing out to the cries of "don't hurt me!" is not a united front.

There did seem to be a whole lot of "blue dog" vs. liberal going on back when the Democrats controlled both houses. But I'd describe what is currently happening in the Republican party as "capitulation to extremeists" rather than "the presentation of a united front." YMMV.


thejeff wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
thejeff wrote:
We've got the free-market absolutists in the national discourse. Where are the radical socialists?
G+%~*$nit, Jeff, I'm right here!

Well get yourself into the Senate!

What are you wasting your time hanging around gaming messageboards for?

I'm not yet 35. EDIT: Or is that the president?


bugleyman wrote:


There did seem to be a whole lot of "blue dog" vs. liberal going on back when the Democrats controlled both houses. But I'd describe what is currently happening in the Republican party as "capitulation to extremeists" rather than "the presentation of a united front." YMMV.

That's a fair description, though I'd probably describe it as the Republican party finally being taken over by the crazies they've being pandering to since Nixon started the "Southern Strategy".

The Republicans, over the last 20 years, have shown far more unity and party discipline than the Democrats. Examine the voting records, particularly on important votes. Which party has been able to sustain more filibusters, or threaten enough to win concessions or derail legislation.


thejeff wrote:

That's a fair description, though I'd probably describe it as the Republican party finally being taken over by the crazies they've being pandering to since Nixon started the "Southern Strategy".

The Republicans, over the last 20 years, have shown far more unity and party discipline than the Democrats. Examine the voting records, particularly on important votes. Which party has been able to sustain more filibusters, or threaten enough to win concessions or derail legislation.

I know some hope that the Republicans nominate and extremist because he or she would be "unelectable." Honestly, that prospect scares the crap out of me...desperation does some crazy things.

Shadow Lodge

There did seem to be a whole lot of "blue dog" vs. liberal going on back when the Democrats controlled both houses. But I'd describe what is currently happening in the Republican party as "capitulation to extremeists" rather than "the presentation of a united front." YMMV.

Why is "capitulation to extremists" a contradiction with "present a united front? Why can't it be both? The tea party extremists wanted something, the republicans could have stood up with them and sided with the democrats on a compromise measure.. they didn't. They went lock step with the tea partiers so they didn't split their party.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Why is "capitulation to extremists" a contradiction with "present a united front? Why can't it be both? The tea party extremists wanted something, the republicans could have stood up with them and sided with the democrats on a compromise measure.. they didn't. They went lock step with the tea partiers so they didn't split their party.

When I think "united front," I think of people working together for mutual benefit, whereas I see the current Republican party dynamic as more fear-driven. But you're right in that they're not mutually exclusive.


So, is this going to be the setting of a PbP game here? What ruleset are we using?


Tarren the Dungeon Master wrote:
So, is this going to be the setting of a PbP game here? What ruleset are we using?

I vote for Savage Worlds. :)

Andoran

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Gark the Goblin wrote:
I was a radical leftist after it had ceased being cool.
Being a radical leftist has always been cool.

Dang, now I'll have to switch to centrist moderate left-winger.

Shadow Lodge

Deadlands. Weird west, OLD school classic rules. Lets see some six shooters ans sea snakes. Yeeeehaw

Andoran

Risk?

I think both parties have difficulty presenting a united front. The Tea Party Republicans are only slightly more extreme than the extremist elements in the Democratic Party. But we're not seeing neo-Nazism in the Republican party (I know people will disagree) or communism (or even socialism) in the Democratic party. Most people in both parties are centrist.

Anyways, all problems can be solved with the promotion of more parties.


Gark the Goblin wrote:

Risk?

[smaller]I think both parties have difficulty presenting a united front. The Tea Party Republicans are only slightly more extreme than the extremist elements in the Democratic Party. But we're not seeing neo-Nazism in the Republican party (I know people will disagree) or communism (or even socialism) in the Democratic party. Most people in both parties are centrist.

What extremist elements in the Democratic Party? Who are they? Are they organized into a caucus or something? Do they have a platform? What are they advocating that is so extreme?

Are we talking economic issues here? Foreign policy? Or social issues?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What extremist elements in the Democratic Party?

- the ones that think that if you work hard, apply yourself, and spend 6 years in school getting a masters degree you should be able to put food on the table, own a home, AND see a doctor.

You know, the whackos...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

What extremist elements in the Democratic Party?

- the ones that think that if you work hard, apply yourself, and spend 6 years in school getting a masters degree you should be able to put food on the table, own a home, AND see a doctor.

You know, the whackos...

Like Teachers? Teachers that have to get their masters, beyond their masters and honestly put in as many college hours as any doctor or lawyer but still get paid half as much or less?

Heaven forbid they ever organize! After all we need a bunch of people that can barely hold Bachelor Degrees telling them what to do in the form of the PTA/PTO/politicians! You know people with absolutely no training in the field, because they know best.

Or how about those FAA personnel that are doing their jobs without pay? Quite nice of them to do that so the republicans can prove how much of a waste they are.

Oh I know -- you mean the ones like Warren Buffet right? Those rich elitist that actually want to pay more taxes so they are doing their share?

Maybe the ones that want governmental health care? You know the programs that cut down on your actual medical expenses and kill the tick of the health insurance industry? While also getting all that liability off of companies' books so they are more competitive with overseas firms?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

What extremist elements in the Democratic Party?

Maybe he's referring to the ones who want to bail out Wall Street at the expense of the working population. Or the ones who want to bomb Libyans in the name of freedom. Or the ones who provide firearms to Mexican drug cartels in order to get a more gun-control friendly environment.

Osirion

Gruumash . wrote:


I think (my opinion) is that is the case because the democratic party has been very smart and has been able to bring together their party as a united front. Something the Republican party has been unable to do since the Regan era.

Gruumash,

I apologize that this has turned into a leftist dogpile, but I did want to address your post.

First, I agree that the Democratic Party have been very canny when it comes to enforcing solidarity in the ranks. What is so surprising about this, to my mind, is that the actual policy decisions do not reflect a genuinely progressive outlook, despite protests from the right.

Second, I wanted to take a second to clarify what I mean about the center-left politics I referred to previously. These views may seem extreme to many Americans, but do keep in mind that they are fairly standard across the rest of the world:

1. The promotion of locally-operated, democratically-run worker co-operatives over multinational corporate hierarchies.

2. Union involvement in the determination of national economic policy.

3. International control and monitoring of transnational corporations, with unions that transcend national boundaries.

4. Economies that mix private enterprise and socialism, which closely regulates financial services in the interests of the people and ensures public services (such as higher education and medical care) are available to everyone.

5. Modern Socialism looks not to control public institutions through top-down state-run policies but instead by the workers and their communities. There are a variety of models being tested here, but the goal is to achieve truly local, democratic decision-making at work and in the public sphere, instead of control wielded by distant bureaucrats.

6. The gradual elimination of the concentrated wealth and power of those at the top, with the eventual goal of a more equitable distribution amongst workers as well as producers.

7. Finally, there needs to be a special emphasis on gradual. Center-left socialist groups (Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists alike) advocate an evolutionary reform of society through the democratic process, not the revolutionary overthrow of governments.

Again, although these ideas may seem extreme to you, please keep in mind that they are normative goals amongst center-left parties that hold sway in Europe, Japan, Canada, and elsewhere. Despite this, we do not see anything approximating these goals by the Democrats in power, either in policy or even their campaign promises.

Finally, I wanted to express solidarity with your views regarding gay marriage and abortion. Although we may disagree on economic policy, on social issues we pretty much see eye to eye.

Osirion

thejeff wrote:
We've got the free-market absolutists in the national discourse. Where are the radical socialists?

I'll take a little less radicalism, please.

If you're looking for reasonable, moderate socialists, though, try here:

Democratic Socialists of America.

Sadly, they don't field candidates of their own. The best-organized progressive political movement in the US today is the Green Party. Although we may never see the emergence of a third-party candidate as President, I would highly recommend that you support your local and state DSA and Green Party organizations and, if there is not a local chapter, organize one!


Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Interesting...of course, what's to stop someone from waltzing in with an army and taking over?

My bet, the cost of running the place to modern standards.

Though that does bring up some good points actually. OK so I set up this place not to far off the US coast. Its laws are very lax - mainly mind your own business...which I very much plan to do since bugging my neighbours is not really something I have a lot of time for while I'm trying to manage my multi-billion dollar smuggling operation into and out of the U.S.

Unless there are rules, laws and enforcers of those laws what keeps me from using this as a trafficking point for immigrants, guns and drugs? AT which point we really are back to...what happens when some government - probably the U.S. since they are being most effected - moves in to put a stop to this?

Looking at Mexico, my answer to your question is "not much".


BigNorseWolf wrote:

What extremist elements in the Democratic Party?

- the ones that think that if you work hard, apply yourself, and spend 6 years in school getting a masters degree you should be able to put food on the table, own a home, AND see a doctor.

You know, the whackos...

What does 6 years of education have to do with Jack? I want a world where people are paid for performance and productivity, not getting a literary criticism Masters or the like.


weirmonken wrote:


1. The promotion of locally-operated, democratically-run worker co-operatives over multinational corporate hierarchies.

Multinational business allows for third world development, global politico-economic stability, and comparative advantage. These are not bad things.

weirmonken wrote:
2. Union involvement in the determination of national economic policy.

which has proven to be continuation of employment by who you know, not what you know

weirmonken wrote:


3. International control and monitoring of transnational corporations, with unions that transcend national boundaries.

more "employment by who you know"

weirmonken wrote:


4. Economies that mix private enterprise and socialism, which closely regulates financial services in the interests of the people and ensures public services (such as higher education and medical care) are available to everyone.

Because government run services like public education and EMTALA have been such smashing successes?

weirmonken wrote:


5. Modern Socialism looks not to control public institutions through top-down state-run policies but instead by the workers and their communities. There are a variety of models being tested here, but the goal is to achieve truly local, democratic decision-making at work and in the public sphere, instead of control wielded by distant bureaucrats.

sounds like libertarianism

weirmonken wrote:


6. The gradual elimination of the concentrated wealth and power of those at the top, with the eventual goal of a more equitable distribution amongst workers as well as producers.

Also, sounds like libertarianism


LilithsThrall wrote:
Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:


Though that does bring up some good points actually. OK so I set up this place not to far off the US coast. Its laws are very lax - mainly mind your own business...which I very much plan to do since bugging my neighbours is not really something I have a lot of time for while I'm trying to manage my multi-billion dollar smuggling operation into and out of the U.S.

Unless there are rules, laws and enforcers of those laws what keeps me from using this as a trafficking point for immigrants, guns and drugs? AT which point we really are back to...what happens when some government - probably the U.S. since they are being most effected - moves in to put a stop to this?

Looking at Mexico, my answer to your question is "not much".

There's a significant difference between dealing with a nation with over 100 million people and a long border with the US and dealing with a small floating island.

Especially when the legal status of that island is likely to be questionable.


thejeff wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:


Though that does bring up some good points actually. OK so I set up this place not to far off the US coast. Its laws are very lax - mainly mind your own business...which I very much plan to do since bugging my neighbours is not really something I have a lot of time for while I'm trying to manage my multi-billion dollar smuggling operation into and out of the U.S.

Unless there are rules, laws and enforcers of those laws what keeps me from using this as a trafficking point for immigrants, guns and drugs? AT which point we really are back to...what happens when some government - probably the U.S. since they are being most effected - moves in to put a stop to this?

Looking at Mexico, my answer to your question is "not much".

There's a significant difference between dealing with a nation with over 100 million people and a long border with the US and dealing with a small floating island.

Especially when the legal status of that island is likely to be questionable.

The question was, "what keeps me from using this as a trafficking point for immigrants, guns, and drugs?" Mexico shows the answer is "not much". There's no relevant difference between Mexico and one of these islands (admittredly, there's plenty of differences, just none of them are relevant to MacDonald's question.


weirmonken wrote:
thejeff wrote:
We've got the free-market absolutists in the national discourse. Where are the radical socialists?

I'll take a little less radicalism, please.

If you're looking for reasonable, moderate socialists, though, try here:

Democratic Socialists of America.

Sadly, they don't field candidates of their own. The best-organized progressive political movement in the US today is the Green Party. Although we may never see the emergence of a third-party candidate as President, I would highly recommend that you support your local and state DSA and Green Party organizations and, if there is not a local chapter, organize one!

I've supported the Green Party in the past. Unfortunately the US political structure doesn't really allow for viable 3rd parties. I've, somewhat reluctantly, decided it's better to try to push the Democratic party to the left than to try to replace it.

That said, neither the Democratic Socialists of America, the Greens, or the Communist Party USA have any real influence on either the Democratic party or the nation's politics as a whole.
Which was my original point. If, as was originally claimed, the extreme right and the extreme left are roughly equal problems, what is this extreme left?
I've asked this before and I still have never gotten an answer from any of the people complaining about the extreme left.
A bunch of snark from liberals and references to a couple of academics and some minor parties are not evidence that extremist leftists are causing gridlock in Washington.


LilithsThrall wrote:
thejeff wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:


T

Unless there are rules, laws and enforcers of those laws what keeps me from using this as a trafficking point for immigrants, guns and drugs? AT which point we really are back to...what happens when some government - probably the U.S. since they are being most effected - moves in to put a stop to this?

Looking at Mexico, my answer to your question is "not much".

There's a significant difference between dealing with a nation with over 100 million people and a long border with the US and dealing with a small floating island.

Especially when the legal status of that island is likely to be questionable.

The question was, "what keeps me from using this as a trafficking point for immigrants, guns, and drugs?" Mexico shows the answer is "not much". There's no relevant difference between Mexico and one of these islands (admittredly, there's plenty of differences, just none of them are relevant to MacDonald's question.

Ahh, I'd thought you were responding to the second question:

Quote:
what happens when some government - probably the U.S. since they are being most effected - moves in to put a stop to this?

And I'd argue that the answer to that question, is what keeps, or at least stops, you.


Evil Lincoln wrote:
Steven Tindall wrote:
Sounds good to me. The feds shouldn't bail out states to begin with. If a state is broke then it's broke. The federal governments role was originally a minor one mostly dealing with foreign powers and disagreements between the states not some king the dukes could run to.
Then we had a civil war, and the role of the federal government changed.

True but it doesn't mean it changed for the better.

Nothing against the federal government but it needs to shrink it's role back to a more manageable level and let the individual states decide what works within their own borders.
While certain things such as defense and interstate commerce need an overall governing body like the fed. Most aspects of governance "should" be left to the sovereign states. Whats right in California might not work in say South Carolina, just because it works in Maine it could be disastrous in Florida.
Yes I am aware that the civil war changed all that and that the fed has been growing out of control ever since, I wonder if they are ever going to give up the emergency powers they granted themselves during WW2.


Steven Tindall wrote:

True but it doesn't mean it changed for the better.

Nothing against the federal government but it needs to shrink it's role back to a more manageable level and let the individual states decide what works within their own borders.
While certain things such as defense and interstate commerce need an overall governing body like the fed. Most aspects of governance "should" be left to the sovereign states. Whats right in California might not work in say South Carolina, just because it works in Maine it could be disastrous in Florida.
Yes I am aware that the civil war changed all that and that the fed has been growing out of control ever since, I wonder if they are ever going to give up the emergency powers they granted themselves during WW2.

So you'd agree, regardless of your personal feelings about racism, that the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional? That the federal government should have left segregation up to the states?

This isn't just a random example. For all the high-minded theorizing about the limits of the federal government, state's rights have always been about race, from before the Civil War through the Civil Rights Movement and the backlash from that.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Evil Lincoln wrote:
Steven Tindall wrote:
Sounds good to me. The feds shouldn't bail out states to begin with. If a state is broke then it's broke. The federal governments role was originally a minor one mostly dealing with foreign powers and disagreements between the states not some king the dukes could run to.
Then we had a civil war, and the role of the federal government changed.

Actually the various tipping points of the Federal government in my mind would be these Presidents.

Roosevelt -Bringer of the New Deal and creator of the modern middle class.

Johnson - Shaper of the Great Society, but at best only partially successful at realising it.

Nixon- Codifier of some of Johnson's ideals, but initiated the current era of government mistrust with the shenanigans associated with Watergate. End of the era of implicit trust in government function.

Reagan - Author of the modern meme of government as an inherent enemy that needed to be muzzled as much as possible. After him no Republican would every openly advocate a revenue increase.

The Civil War I actually regard as a major, but not final resolution of the inherent philosophical war between Alexander Hamilton, one of the first American capitalists, and Thomas Jefferson, who actually was looking back to feudal times for his role models.


thejeff wrote:
Steven Tindall wrote:

True but it doesn't mean it changed for the better.

Nothing against the federal government but it needs to shrink it's role back to a more manageable level and let the individual states decide what works within their own borders.
While certain things such as defense and interstate commerce need an overall governing body like the fed. Most aspects of governance "should" be left to the sovereign states. Whats right in California might not work in say South Carolina, just because it works in Maine it could be disastrous in Florida.
Yes I am aware that the civil war changed all that and that the fed has been growing out of control ever since, I wonder if they are ever going to give up the emergency powers they granted themselves during WW2.

So you'd agree, regardless of your personal feelings about racism, that the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional? That the federal government should have left segregation up to the states?

This isn't just a random example. For all the high-minded theorizing about the limits of the federal government, state's rights have always been about race, from before the Civil War through the Civil Rights Movement and the backlash from that.

Speaking of the Civil Rights Act, while the fraction of black families with middle-class incomes rose almost 40 percentage points between 1940 and 1970, it has inched up only another 10 points since then.

The economic advancement of black poor actually slowed down after the Civil Rights Act.


LilithsThrall wrote:


Speaking of the Civil Rights Act, while the fraction of black families with middle-class incomes rose almost 40 percentage points between 1940 and 1970, it has inched up only another 10 points since then.

The economic advancement of black poor actually slowed down after the Civil Rights Act.

Which of course has nothing to do with the difference between the overall growth of the middle class in the post war period and the stagnation of that growth since 1970.

No, no. What it really means is blacks were better off living under Jim Crow.


thejeff wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:


Speaking of the Civil Rights Act, while the fraction of black families with middle-class incomes rose almost 40 percentage points between 1940 and 1970, it has inched up only another 10 points since then.

The economic advancement of black poor actually slowed down after the Civil Rights Act.

Which of course has nothing to do with the difference between the overall growth of the middle class in the post war period and the stagnation of that growth since 1970.

No, no. What it really means is blacks were better off living under Jim Crow.

Regarding the health of the middle class, one of the largest indicators is college degrees. Which, of course, has largely fallen among blacks due to affirmative action (Thomas Sowell has some compelling data on this).

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
LilithsThrall wrote:
thejeff wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:


Speaking of the Civil Rights Act, while the fraction of black families with middle-class incomes rose almost 40 percentage points between 1940 and 1970, it has inched up only another 10 points since then.

The economic advancement of black poor actually slowed down after the Civil Rights Act.

Which of course has nothing to do with the difference between the overall growth of the middle class in the post war period and the stagnation of that growth since 1970.

No, no. What it really means is blacks were better off living under Jim Crow.

Regarding the health of the middle class, one of the largest indicators is college degrees. Which, of course, has largely fallen among blacks due to affirmative action (Thomas Sowell has some compelling data on this).

Does the data show a causal link or merely a correllation? I can see some ways it could be causal ("Well, we've made our quota, no need to worry now") but just checking as social science is always going to be chock full of confounding factors for any change.


Paul Watson wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
thejeff wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:


Speaking of the Civil Rights Act, while the fraction of black families with middle-class incomes rose almost 40 percentage points between 1940 and 1970, it has inched up only another 10 points since then.

The economic advancement of black poor actually slowed down after the Civil Rights Act.

Which of course has nothing to do with the difference between the overall growth of the middle class in the post war period and the stagnation of that growth since 1970.

No, no. What it really means is blacks were better off living under Jim Crow.

Regarding the health of the middle class, one of the largest indicators is college degrees. Which, of course, has largely fallen among blacks due to affirmative action (Thomas Sowell has some compelling data on this).
Does the data show a causal link or merely a correllation? I can see some ways it could be causal ("Well, we've made our quota, no need to worry now") but just checking as social science is always going to be chock full of confounding factors for any change.

I believe it's causal. Sowell seems to think it is. What he claims is that AA increases the demand for blacks as students in higher education. This leads to them having a higher rate of acceptance into the more competitive schools. So, a black student and a white student (or a male student and a female student, or whatever other split you want to consider) may have equal academic capability, but the black student gets into a more competitive school. But, as the schools are more competitive, there's a higher dropout rate as well. So, blacks have benefitted in getting into school, but (through a system fault, not a fault of the black students) have a higher dropout rate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Abraham spalding wrote:

Great idea until you really think about it.

.

A bunch of people splitting off to form their own government (world)
(playground) -- whatever -- seems like a dream that never goes away.

My assumption is this island will just become a huge Roman Orgy.
Then once the booze and money runs out they will get hungry and go home.

But, I have to wonder if we humans will ever colonize another planet.
Being on another planet ups the ante considerably, because when you get
tired and want to go home... you can't.

This will never come to pass. There is no profit motive, or atleast, not
a high enough profit motive to move the current forces at work into this
particular alignment.

Btw, I looked at the picture, but didn't read the article, because
reading is hard.

I'm keeping an open mind however.


LilithsThrall wrote:
thejeff wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:


Speaking of the Civil Rights Act, while the fraction of black families with middle-class incomes rose almost 40 percentage points between 1940 and 1970, it has inched up only another 10 points since then.

The economic advancement of black poor actually slowed down after the Civil Rights Act.

Which of course has nothing to do with the difference between the overall growth of the middle class in the post war period and the stagnation of that growth since 1970.

No, no. What it really means is blacks were better off living under Jim Crow.

Regarding the health of the middle class, one of the largest indicators is college degrees. Which, of course, has largely fallen among blacks due to affirmative action (Thomas Sowell has some compelling data on this).

You know, I'd actually like to see some data on this. Particularly your first claim. What are you using to define middle-class income? What fraction were black families at in 1940, 1970 and now? How does that compare with white families? Without knowing at least that, it's hard to say anything about causes. I do know as I said before, from 1940 through the 60s was a time of great expansion of the middle class in general, while the median US income has stagnated ever since, which might have some impact on the ability of blacks to join the middle class as well.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
LilithsThrall wrote:


Regarding the health of the middle class, one of the largest indicators is college degrees. Which, of course, has largely fallen among blacks due to affirmative action (Thomas Sowell has some compelling data on this).

Given that Thomas Sowell has compared Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler, a comparison heavily endorsed by the likes of Sarah Palin, I'd take his conclusions with a heavy dose of salt. He also completely makes the wrong conclusions on his asssement of IQ differences between ethnic groups, failing to take into account that inferior education opportunities may very well account for the 10-15 pt differences measured between whites and nonwhites.


thejeff wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
thejeff wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:


Speaking of the Civil Rights Act, while the fraction of black families with middle-class incomes rose almost 40 percentage points between 1940 and 1970, it has inched up only another 10 points since then.

The economic advancement of black poor actually slowed down after the Civil Rights Act.

Which of course has nothing to do with the difference between the overall growth of the middle class in the post war period and the stagnation of that growth since 1970.

No, no. What it really means is blacks were better off living under Jim Crow.

Regarding the health of the middle class, one of the largest indicators is college degrees. Which, of course, has largely fallen among blacks due to affirmative action (Thomas Sowell has some compelling data on this).
You know, I'd actually like to see some data on this. Particularly your first claim. What are you using to define middle-class income? What fraction were black families at in 1940, 1970 and now? How does that compare with white families? Without knowing at least that, it's hard to say anything about causes. I do know as I said before, from 1940 through the 60s was a time of great expansion of the middle class in general, while the median US income has stagnated ever since, which might have some impact on the ability of blacks to join the middle class as well.

My first claim came from here

http://www.brookings.edu/articles/1998/spring_affirmativeaction_thernstrom. aspx

Cheliax

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

So you'd agree, regardless of your personal feelings about racism, that the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional? That the federal government should have left segregation up to the states?

This isn't just a random example. For all the high-minded theorizing about the limits of the federal government, state's rights have always been about race, from before the Civil War through the Civil Rights Movement and the backlash from that.

Not trying to speak for Steven here, but the Civil Rights Act was justified by upholding the "Equal Protection" portion of the 14th Ammendment.

It was perfectly within the Federal Government's juristiction.


Jenner2057 wrote:
thejeff wrote:

So you'd agree, regardless of your personal feelings about racism, that the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional? That the federal government should have left segregation up to the states?

This isn't just a random example. For all the high-minded theorizing about the limits of the federal government, state's rights have always been about race, from before the Civil War through the Civil Rights Movement and the backlash from that.

Not trying to speak for Steven here, but the Civil Rights Act was justified by upholding the "Equal Protection" portion of the 14th Ammendment.

It was perfectly within the Federal Government's juristiction.

Well, yeah. I know that.

Doesn't mean all the state's rights advocates agree.

Cheliax

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

Well, yeah. I know that.

Doesn't mean all the state's rights advocates agree.

LOL. Well I'm a strong state's rights advocate and I agree with ya! :) But I get what you're trying to say.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Abraham, did you ever acknowledge this? I couldn't find your reply.

lastknightleft wrote:
You're the one not reading it properly.
Quote:
The idea is for these countries to start from scratch--free from the laws, regulations, and moral codes of any existing place.
Free from others means you create your own, not that you have none. In other words they get to start from scratch creating their own laws and morals, not that they lack them entirely, your argument assumes anarchy as he said, not libertarianism. Could they create what you're arguing if they so chose, possibly, are they going to after investing that much money into it, not likely. So lets leave the straw man Mad Max arguments behind please.


Jenner2057 wrote:
thejeff wrote:

So you'd agree, regardless of your personal feelings about racism, that the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional? That the federal government should have left segregation up to the states?

This isn't just a random example. For all the high-minded theorizing about the limits of the federal government, state's rights have always been about race, from before the Civil War through the Civil Rights Movement and the backlash from that.

Not trying to speak for Steven here, but the Civil Rights Act was justified by upholding the "Equal Protection" portion of the 14th Ammendment.

It was perfectly within the Federal Government's juristiction.

I am in agreement. What was unconstitutional was states ignoring the rights of minorities in direct opposition of the 14th amendment.

Cheliax

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting Subscriber
TheWhiteknife wrote:
I am in agreement. What was unconstitutional was states ignoring the rights of minorities in direct opposition of the 14th amendment.

Exactly. But thejeff's point (I believe, and my apologies if it was not) was that Civil Rights and segregation aren't clearly spelled out as responsibilities of the Federal Government in the Constitution. Therefore to a (very) strict states' rights activist, the Feds should have been hands off.

Now I don't think that anyone but the most extreme (read: crazy) person wouldn't see this falling under the 14th Ammendment but... eh. :)

Shadow Lodge

..

Quote:

What does 6 years of education have to do with Jack? I want a world where people are paid for performance and productivity, not getting a literary criticism Masters or the like.

If they suck at the job you should be able to figure that out before its harder to fire them.

Paying teachers based on performance is like handing one person a 1972 gremlin and the other a Porche and saying we'll pay you based on how fast you can do a lap. Believe it or not, students are individuals before they turn 18. They already have life experiences, desires, and free will. Some of them will work harder than others, some of them show up on time with a full stomach, their homework done, and a motivation to learn and others are hungry, distracted, and will find the paint cracks in the ceiling more interesting than anything you're doing.

Paizo Employee PostMonster General

3 people marked this as a favorite.

People, people. I think we're straying from the topic at hand, which is: Will they have an adequate supply of fluffy white cats and minions?

Andoran

I bet they could be self-sufficient if they did whaling and deep-sea trawling expeditions. Cats eat whale, right?

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Gary Teter wrote:
People, people. I think we're straying from the topic at hand, which is: Will they have an adequate supply of fluffy white cats and minions?

I think you mean, will the fluffy white cats have an adequate supply of minions, some of whom think they're in charge.

Spoiler:
And I, for one, welcome our new kitty overlords.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

.

Paying teachers based on performance is like handing one person a 1972 gremlin and the other a Porche and saying we'll pay you based on how fast you can do a lap. Believe it or not, students are individuals before they turn 18. They already have life experiences, desires, and free will. Some of them will work harder than others, some of them show up on time with a full stomach, their homework done, and a motivation to learn and others are hungry, distracted, and will find the paint cracks in the ceiling more interesting than anything you're doing.

Show me a professional field where this doesn't happen. Yet, those other professional fields pay on performance. Why should teachers be an exception?


LazarX wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:


Regarding the health of the middle class, one of the largest indicators is college degrees. Which, of course, has largely fallen among blacks due to affirmative action (Thomas Sowell has some compelling data on this).

Given that Thomas Sowell has compared Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler, a comparison heavily endorsed by the likes of Sarah Palin, I'd take his conclusions with a heavy dose of salt. He also completely makes the wrong conclusions on his asssement of IQ differences between ethnic groups, failing to take into account that inferior education opportunities may very well account for the 10-15 pt differences measured between whites and nonwhites.

Having read his views on IQ and race, I'm surprised that you'd make that claim as his writings that I've read don't say anything like that. Instead, he stresses quite strongly on culture's impact on IQ and points out very clearly that two different white groups can have just as much an IQ disparity as black and white groups do.

I'd like you to identify what writings of his led you to this take on his views so that I may read them.


Grand Magus wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:

Great idea until you really think about it.

.

A bunch of people splitting off to form their own government (world)
(playground) -- whatever -- seems like a dream that never goes away.

My assumption is this island will just become a huge Roman Orgy.
Then once the booze and money runs out they will get hungry and go home.

But, I have to wonder if we humans will ever colonize another planet.
Being on another planet ups the ante considerably, because when you get
tired and want to go home... you can't.

This will never come to pass. There is no profit motive, or atleast, not
a high enough profit motive to move the current forces at work into this
particular alignment.

Btw, I looked at the picture, but didn't read the article, because
reading is hard.

I'm keeping an open mind however.

Once the tech catches up with our desire to actually explore space and colonize it the we will.

I never said it would be voluntary, look at the state of Georgia which started as a penal colony or Australia for that matter.
All they have to do once we get "warp drive" or "hyper drive" or whatever is play the whole human treatment card and away they go.

101 to 150 of 199 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Libertarian Paradise in the making? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.