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

Third party voting: Throwing your vote away or the only Path to Progress?


Off-Topic Discussions

301 to 350 of 635 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

Romney would have to show some evidence that trickle down economics works, and that he's NOT just getting himself a giant tax cut for him and his friends.


Irontruth wrote:
Edit: I can't think of a way to really make you feel your privilege through a message board. The medium and it's effects are just too limited. I guess I can try music. Listen to that song. Read up on lynchings in this country.

So what exactly is my "privilege"? That I'm of European decent? What special advantages do I realistically get, as the term privilege implies, for being a white male in the year 2012? Maybe I'm missing out on something here. /s

Irontruth wrote:
Than come back and tell me that hanging n*****s from trees was acceptable in a society, but somehow the free market was going to fix that.

People fix societal problems such as racism, sexism and bigotry. Government can do little about it and a free market's purpose isn't to stamp these things out. It is an unintended consequence but only if everyone is treated equally.

If it's any consolation, I personally don't have any issues with the Civil Rights Act and I doubt that many other libertarians do as well. The few problems with it are of minor importance.

Look, the way we go about enforcing "equality" in this country does more harm than good. We have double standards that don't help those that we are intending to help. We could solve/limit this problem much faster without the government trying to help. This isn't so much a knock on the Civil Rights Act as it is on the almost 50 years of bad policy that followed.

Irontruth wrote:
The parents of the idyllic 1950's grew up in a world like this. WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGE

All of these people should have been arrested. This is clearly criminal. Any law enforcement officer who failed to arrest these people should have also been arrested (if they aren't already in the picture). Allowing people to get away with murder is clearly not equality and grossly violates the non-aggression principle that is the prime directive of libertarians. The problem was that criminal offenses went unpunished (and were often encouraged) by those in charge of enforcing the law. This is not acceptable.

Irontruth wrote:
But we can wait for the free market, right?

You suggest that the government provides faster results. If only that were true. The problem is that interventionism usually makes things worse and slows progress. Please note that the author of this link is African American and not just spewing racial bigotry.

A Man In Black wrote:
The free market is racist if people in the free market are choosing to do racist things at personal expense. For example, fleeing communities and moving at great personal expense and inconvenience. Or rather, it is not a free market, and indeed the "free market" is a a myth. The free market can't fix racism, because it's predicated on people being profit-maximizers, and racism (and tribalism is general) is a motivation that conflicts with profit maximization. People will do things which are self-detrimental because those actions hurt Them, regardless of whether They are another race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, whatever. If you need evidence of this, Irontruth linked you plenty.

This is mostly accurate. It's why slavery was likely a necessity for a business to compete in the Old South. But as I argued before, government did nothing about it until popular support changed to an anti-slavery mentality. Also note that this wasn't even a local shift in thinking. Slavery in many parts of the world began to lose favor around this time. America was actually a little slow to react on this one due to the South's reliance on it although the industrial revolution weakened this considerably.

A Man In Black wrote:
I still don't think you're a straight up racist, but these sorts of problems go straight to the heart of libertarianism. This is why libertarians tend to be well-off white guys.

That does seem to be the stereotype. I can't say that I'm well-off, though, and I spent most of my life dirt poor. The reason that I support it because I believe that will produce much better results than progressivism which appears to be the only other choice available. It also fits my way of thinking a lot better. It makes rational sense to me and follows principles that are important to me (anti-aggression, equality, etc.).


Freehold DM wrote:
I know. They won't stop bleating about it every chance they get. Furthermore, you can't just handwave away 1776-1865. I suspect you already knew this, but you really can't. Jefferson et.al had a chance to do the right thing re: all men created equal. They did not.

He [the king of Britain] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

[From Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Julian P. Boyd (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950), 1:426.]

This part was struck from the original draft of the Declaration of Independence by representatives of South Carolina and Georgia.

ciretose wrote:
You had a shot to get Ron Paul on the ballot. You failed. Move on to who is left and make a choice.

Not true. There was never "a shot". The GOP is a closed organization who can and does nominate whoever it wants as its candidate. They had Romney picked out from the beginning and it was painfully obvious. Now this is fine if that's the way they want to operate (and it is) but let's not pretend that it's something that it's not. Romney and the GOP screwed Ron Paul over royally during the primaries. The sad thing is that I doubt that they really even needed to. Mitt probably would have won being the media darling (up till the point where he got the nomination, at least).

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
AMiB already called me out on the Republicans, and, yeah, he's right about the tariffs and stuff, but I'm pretty sure (could be wrong) that there have never actually been any totally free markets in world history.

No, there never has been a pure free market because there has never been pure freedom and liberty which would be a prerequisite. The goal is to get as close as possible.

ciretose wrote:

This is how the world works. Your vote for Gary Johnson is as effective as voting for Nadar.

See how influential he is now?

Nader was just some dude. Johnson is part of a quickly growing movement of libertarianism going on in the United States. It doesn't matter if he only gets 5% of the vote. This will one of two outcomes. Either he or someone else runs in 2016 and maybe collects 10%-15% of the vote or the Republicans become much more libertarian in order to bring us back into the fold. This is changing politics from the inside. Third parties have a long history of influencing the two dominant parties. If they fail to adapt, they become obsolete almost overnight. If neoconservatism continues to lose popularity, who knows? Maybe the Libertarian party all of a sudden takes its place much like the Republican party did in the mid 1800's.


ciretose wrote:

I think the mindset of "Don't blame me, I didn't vote" isn't dissimilar from "Don't blame me, I voted for someone who had no chance of winning."

If Nadar voters voted for the candidate closest to their interests that had a chance of winning, Bush is never president in 2000 and likely not even on the ballot in 2004, since losers in the General Election don't generally get a second chance.

Even though I don't agree, I get your point. I'll argue that anyone who voted for Nader knew that he couldn't win but was unwilling to throw a vote for Gore. They obviously didn't see Gore as being any better than Bush. You can't blame them for not knowing the future and that something like 9/11 would happen but we also can't say with any certainty that Gore would have been any different on the war front after an event like that.

Johnson and the Libertarian vote is a completely different situation, though. We are voting for liberty as opposed to authoritarianism. There is no "lesser of two evils" when what you oppose is statism and that will never change if we keep voting for it. We, in essence, are doing what you're suggesting. The only problem is that neither of the two major parties even come close to matching what we desire so we have to fall to the third option. Some of us may ideologically prefer the Constitution party but they don't appear to have enough support to make it on the ballot in enough states to be relevant.

LazarX wrote:

Part of you not being alive in that area is that you were not around to make the observation on how passing the Civil Rights Act impacted this country. No it did not make racism go away over night. But it was an important part of the transition. It gave Americans a legal direct tool to attack elements of racism beyond protest marches and rioting. It was the passing of Law and Laws are an essential building block in how you put together a civilization.

The Civil Rights Act was not the beginning of the struggle against racism, nor did it solve the problems overnight, nor does it mean that the problem is over now. But that does not change the fact that it was and remains an...

I agree. It's a reflection of a turning point in American history. It marks an era when popular opinion finally changed to what it should have been all along. A similar thing is happening now with the gay rights movement. The government still discriminates against gays and lesbians and it just shows you how behind the times they really are. It doesn't mean that the passage of whatever law that Obama will almost assuredly enact will be the government valiantly coming to the rescue of the citizens civil rights. It's another reflection of time when popular opinion finally shifted to where it should have been ages ago. If government stood against popular opinion and pushed gay rights through 10 years ago or more, maybe I'd have a different view on this. Fact of the matter is, they only "evolove" when they see an opportunity gain votes from it. Granted, our politicians did have a little more honor 50 years ago but not all that much more.

Scott Betts wrote:
What I don't accept is the idea that there are lots of people out there for whom choosing either Romney or Obama is equally bad. That's nonsense, repeated most often by those with much less political awareness than they think they have.

Maybe you can help me decide which one is worse than the other. The problem is that the major parties spew lies and empty campaign promises throughout the entire process. I honestly have no idea what will happen if Obama gets reelected. Many people voted for Obama because he was going to be great for civil liberties. He's been a disaster in that area ... virtually the exact opposite of what most people wanted.

So maybe Romney it is. But what is he all about? He didn't even have a platform until he picked up Paul Ryan. He's also pretending to be this representative of the right after a stint as governor where he was left of Obama. Dude is literally whatever he needs to be which means that if he wins, he'll need to be the guy paying back hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions.

So how the heck am I supposed to choose which one is better if I have not even the slightest clue what either one will do. Sounds more like Russian Roulette to me. I'd rather not play.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Romney would have to show some evidence that trickle down economics works, and that he's NOT just getting himself a giant tax cut for him and his friends.

I don't see that happening. Trickle-down doesn't work when big government keeps getting bigger and grinding the economy to a halt. It requires two things.

1. Cut taxes.
2. Cut government spending.
3. Don't intervene in the market.

This would allow the economy to really get going again but unfortunately, Republicans are apparently incapable of doing #2, and for the most part, #3. It doesn't work if all you do is cut taxes.


Frogboy wrote:
Maybe you can help me decide which one is worse than the other.

I don't know enough about you to be able to say.

Statistically speaking, Obama is a better choice for the average voter, by a long shot. However, it's very possible you could be in the (much smaller) group of voters who are very wealthy and have strong religious conservative values, for instance, in which case Romney might be a better choice.

Quote:
The problem is that the major parties spew lies and empty campaign promises throughout the entire process.

Some do. And some do much more than others.

Quote:
I honestly have no idea what will happen if Obama gets reelected. Many people voted for Obama because he was going to be great for civil liberties. He's been a disaster in that area ... virtually the exact opposite of what most people wanted.

Actually, I don't think many people favored Obama for his positions on civil liberties. That is, frankly, not high on lists of voter priorities. That said, Obama has done more to advance homosexual rights than any President in history, so even after one term history will likely remember him as making at least some strides in the realm of civil rights.

Quote:
So maybe Romney it is. But what is he all about? He didn't even have a platform until he picked up Paul Ryan. He's also pretending to be this representative of the right after a stint as governor where he was left of Obama.

I don't think that's accurate. In a couple of areas, he was fairly liberal. That doesn't mean that his administration was, as a whole, more liberal than Obama's.

Quote:

Dude is literally whatever he needs to be which means that if he wins, he'll need to be the guy paying back hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions.

So how the heck am I supposed to choose which one is better if I have not even the slightest clue what either one will do. Sounds more like Russian Roulette to me. I'd rather not play.

If you don't have the slightest clue what either will do, you haven't done enough research. Obama's second term will look fairly similar to his first in terms of executive action. Romney is harder to predict because of his rampant duplicity, but you can be relatively assured of him comporting himself as a model Republican President, because if he's elected he will have re-election in mind.

Shadow Lodge

Frogboy wrote:

I don't see that happening. Trickle-down doesn't work when big government keeps getting bigger and grinding the economy to a halt. It requires two things.[]

1. Cut taxes.
2. Cut government spending.
3. Don't intervene in the market.

It wouldn't work then anyway. Romney isn't going to cut your taxes or the taxes of the middle class. He's only going to cut federal income and capital gains taxes. Any cuts he makes to your federal taxes will be more than offset by the amount of state and local taxes you'll have to pay to make up for the federal governments shortfall.

If however you make 500,000 and exist in a PO box in delaware you'll be fine.

Quote:
This would allow the economy to really get going again but unfortunately, Republicans are apparently incapable of doing #2, and for the most part, #3. It doesn't work if all you do is cut taxes.

I don't think this is going to happen. There is simply no reason anyone would want to manufacture anything in america anymore. You are never going to compete with low chinese wages and lack of environmental regulations without turning america into the hellscape it was before the EPA.


Frogboy wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Edit: I can't think of a way to really make you feel your privilege through a message board. The medium and it's effects are just too limited. I guess I can try music. Listen to that song. Read up on lynchings in this country.

So what exactly is my "privilege"? That I'm of European decent? What special advantages do I realistically get, as the term privilege implies, for being a white male in the year 2012? Maybe I'm missing out on something here. /s

Oh snap, it's almost like I predicted that response a couple pages ago.

I'm still not interested in a debate on this subject, which you are still approaching this as. You're wrong and I know you're wrong. I don't want to waste the time and energy on a debate about a topic that I know you won't change your mind on.

BNW can declare you the victor on this. I really don't care.

A song about how the free market protected black churches in Alabama.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Anyway, near as I can make it out:

CIA stooges and Islamic fundamentalists take advantage of "Arab Spring" and start a revolt above the fifth largest oil reserves in the world.

Western imperialism, mostly the French, think this is a great chance for "humanitarian intervention" (never mind the new scramble for Africa, never mind Qadaffi's opposition to Africom, never mind the petrocorporations salivating to get their hands on LNOC oilfields).

They tell a bunch of lies. Get the UN to declare a no-fly zone. Rebels still can't win. They tell more lies. Imperialists run something like 20,000 bombing sorties over the next seven months and bomb the shiznit out of Libya. (We all know that when they claim there are few to no civilian casualties, they're lying their asses off. I can't remember if you and I have already yelled at each other over Majer or not.)

Finally, the rebels track down Qaddafi and sodomize him with a knife. The rebels win and, like the bandits and thieves they are, fall out among themselves and start assassinating each other.

Doesn't really sound all that much better than Iraq to me.

I wish it had been so well planned, but our former president Sarkozy is REALLY the sort of guy who would start a war because 1) a known media-made pseudo intellectual just told him there was an emergency to do so; 2) it would make him look good; 3) Khadaffi pissed him off three years earlier during an official visit. Don't forget the human factor, especially those with megalomaniacal tendancies.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Frogboy wrote:
So what exactly is my "privilege"? That I'm of European decent? What special advantages do I realistically get, as the term privilege implies, for being a white male in the year 2012? Maybe I'm missing out on something here.

People don't discriminate against you. You aren't assumed to be a criminal without cause. You aren't assumed to be poor without cause. People assume you speak English (or whatever language, if you're not American). You don't ever have to worry about race or racists if you don't want to.

Also, any time anyone mentions "reverse racism", I'm going to link this.

Quote:
Look, the way we go about enforcing "equality" in this country does more harm than good. We have double standards that don't help those that we are intending to help. We could solve/limit this problem much faster without the government trying to help. This isn't so much a knock on the Civil Rights Act as it is on the almost 50 years of bad policy that followed.

Examples, please.

Be warned, this is an invitation for me to rip into you. Feel free to walk this one back.

Quote:
Not true. There was never "a shot". The GOP is a closed organization who can and does nominate whoever it wants as its candidate. They had Romney picked out from the beginning and it was painfully obvious. Now this is fine if that's the way they want to operate (and it is) but let's not pretend that it's something that it's not. Romney and the GOP screwed Ron Paul over royally during the primaries. The sad thing is that I doubt that they really even needed to. Mitt probably would have won being the media darling (up till the point where he got the nomination, at least).

The GOP didn't want Mitt Romney. I'm not sure if you've noticed but until he got the nomination and the party machine got behind him (or else they'd just lose the election), everyone was clamoring for Anyone But Romney. The problem was that anyone who wasn't a total loser didn't particularly want to run against an incumbent president. You didn't see Chris Christie or Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush in the primaries. Instead, Romney went up against lightweights like Santorum and Paul and Perry, and people who were obviously campaigning as a glorified book tour, like Gingrich and Cain and Bachmann.

Quote:
No, there never has been a pure free market because there has never been pure freedom and liberty which would be a prerequisite. The goal is to get as close as possible.
Quote:
I don't see that happening. Trickle-down doesn't work when big government keeps getting bigger and grinding the economy to a halt. It requires two things.

Don't you people understand? There has never been a True Scotsman. Any Scots who have previously existed were insufficiently Scottish.

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
AMiB already called me out on the Republicans, and, yeah, he's right about the tariffs and stuff, but I'm pretty sure (could be wrong) that there have never actually been any totally free markets in world history.

There isn't any such thing as a totally free market. Markets are only protected from market failure (chiefly monopolism) by government regulation. You only have a market because of functions that define the existence of a government; for example, without government, you can't have enforceable contracts. A "truly" free market somehow enforces contracts without anyone actually using force to do so.


Fair Warning: Anarcho Capitalists LOOOOOOVE the Icelandic Commonwealth from circa 800 AD to about 1269 AD. It's a particular example of rosey-reading of history by Friedmanites.

I'll pre-emptively debunk now.

1) Iceland in that span of time was dirt poor. And I literally mean "poor in dirt", not just the usual squalor of the Early Middle Ages. Iceland had a severe timber shortage, it had trouble making the fishing boats needed, and the sheep grazing and destruction of pasture meant it was on a famine's edge for much of this time.

2) As a result of point 1, nearly everything in Iceland revolved around preventing the Tragedy of the Commons...and because of the paucity of easily mined metals, and the general squalor of the Early Middle Ages, plus being poor in dirt, meant that it was very very difficult for anyone to get any more rich than the rest.

3) This all changed when the Sturlinglagas, who were one of the 80ish major landholding families, got exiled from Iceland for a blood feud, stayed away for the required term, and while doing so, swore fealty to the King of Norway. Who sent him home with four ships full of trade goods, died cloth, and enough swords and spearheads for him to give them away as party favors. Which he did.

4) As soon as Snorri Sturluson got more wealth than the rest of the gothi (chieftains) the entire Icelandic society - which was balanced provided nobody was significantly more wealthy than the rest, quickly devolved into a civil war that ran for 45 years at a very very low intensity (lots of night-murders, few pitched battles. Your average PFS party has killed more people than were slain in the Sturungalaga by the time they're 4th level.)

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.

OMG the messageboard just ate a really long post...

To sum up what I am not taking the time to re-write.

Libertarians are dumb because they think removing government won't lead to centralized monopolistic corporate entities that look out only for the interest of the company while functionally acting just as disruptively to the magically "Free" market as any government force, despite all evidence of history showing this is exactly what occurs. Left unchecked, power consolodates and seeks to remain in power by crushing competition. Government is the arbitor and equalizer that prevents the consolidation of the free market, not the other way around.

Similiarly Communists and fans of centralized government are dumb because they think that when that much power is centralized it won't become corrupt and subverted by those in power, as those in power are the kind of people who seek power, and those people are often dicks. So when you consolidate power, you also make it easier for dicks to be dicks.

I am a pragmatist, who votes for pragmatists.

150 years ago, Lincoln freed the slaves. Long after most reasonable people had been calling for it for any number of reasons. He wasn't leading the charge, he was dragging his feet. Why? Because he understood if he made it just about slavery, he could lose the war and the union, and that was more important.

100 years ago women couldn't vote.

50 years ago, blacks drank out of different water fountains, went to different schools, bathrooms, etc...

25 years ago, the AIDs epidemic was called the "Gay Plague" in general converation. It only really started to matter when people like Magic Johnson got sick.

20 years ago, a younger Bill Clinton did not allow Gays in the military when he was elected president because he knew if he did he would not be re-elected. Why? Because in 1992, America hated gays. As it was, DADT helped the Democrats lose the house and senate. But DADT was a foot in the door that allowed us to say "Gays have been in the military all this time and the world didn't explode."

Which is why Obama could lift the ban entirely and still have a chance at re-election.

A little over 4 years ago, on September 15th 2008 Lehman Brothers declared bankrupcy. The entire financial system was in collaspe because deregulating the free market had failed. Don't give me the "Fanny" or "Freddie" crap, it was people investing in instruments they didn't understand and passing off risk on each other as they consolidated power. It was lack of oversight by an impartial outside resource.

It was a failure of governance.

Four years later, 3 and a half after Obama took office, if you don't think we are better off than when we weren't sure if the entire financial system would collapse you are full of crap.

Romney is offering the same philosophy that caused that collapse. That caused the explosion of Debt under Reagan that lead to the SNL crisis and the Recession of 1991 that got Clinton Elected despite Bush Sr winning a war in Iraq.

This philosophy is dumb.


ciretose wrote:


Similiarly Communists and fans of centralized government are dumb because they think that when that much power is centralized it won't become corrupt and subverted by those in power, as those in power are the kind of people who seek power, and those people are often dicks. So when you consolidate power, you also make it easier for dicks to be dicks.

Well, I can't speak for fans of centralized government but I can speak for (some of the) Communists and, actually, we're not for centralized power.

What we are for is collectived ownership of the means of production and elected workers committees to run a democratically-planned economy where everybody has a job and only works, like, five hours a day. For starters; hopefully as these 3-D printers become more and more available, we'll get to work even less.

EDIT:
I know it didn't go that way in Russia, but it's a very long, not terribly on-topic subject.

Andoran

Collective ownership is centralized power.

And it didn't go that way in a lot of places, not just Russia.


ciretose wrote:
Collective ownership is centralized power.

Seeing as how less than 1% own the means of production now, I'd say that's pretty centralized, too.

Quote:
And it didn't go that way in a lot of places, not just Russia.

Yes, that's true, but there was only a workers revolution in Russia. Eastern Europe is set up on the bayonets of the Red Army and Tito, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Kim il-Sung, Fidel Castro, etc. took power at the heads of peasant guerilla armies.

Probably sounds like a No True Scotsman argument to the non-believer, but it's a big deal to us Marxists.

Andoran

Collective ownership implies one entity controls all decisions. I agree 1% controlling all means of production is not great, but 1 entity is more dangerous.


A Man In Black wrote:

AMiB already called me out on the Republicans, and, yeah, he's right about the tariffs and stuff, but I'm pretty sure (could be wrong) that there have never actually been any totally free markets in world history.

There isn't any such thing as a totally free market. Markets are only protected from market failure (chiefly monopolism) by government regulation. You only have a market because of functions that define the existence of a government; for example, without government, you can't have enforceable contracts. A "truly" free market somehow enforces contracts without anyone actually using force to do so.

Good to know. I was hedging my bets.

---
Well, then I even understand less what that whole free markets equals racism argument is about.

The previous two periods in American history of, I don't know, Keynesianism or whatever, weren't exactly good times for blacks, either. Lynchings proceeded apace throughout the 30s, and, as I recall, the New Deal found lots of clever and tricksy ways to not include black people. I seem to recall there being quite a bit of racial tension during the Democratic administrations of the sixties, too.

But that was a good Coltrane clip, Citizen Truth.


ciretose wrote:
Collective ownership implies one entity controls all decisions. I agree 1% controlling all means of production is not great, but 1 entity is more dangerous.

Well, again, this might be No True Scotsman stuff, but actually decisions would be made by the local workers committees.


Smarnil le couard wrote:

I wish it had been so well planned, but our former president Sarkozy is REALLY the sort of guy who would start a war because 1) a known media-made pseudo intellectual just told him there was an emergency to do so; 2) it would make him look good; 3) Khadaffi pissed him off three years earlier during an official visit. Don't forget the human factor, especially those with megalomaniacal tendancies.

Thank you for the some of the French background to this act of selfless humanitarian intervention, Comrade le Couard. But I am curious as to why you think I think it was well-planned?

Because I think the Western imperialists have mostly been scrambling to stay one step ahead of events this whole "Arab Spring."


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Collective ownership implies one entity controls all decisions. I agree 1% controlling all means of production is not great, but 1 entity is more dangerous.

Well, again, this might be No True Scotsman stuff, but actually decisions would be made by the local workers committees.

I don't really get into debates over the merits of Communism usually, but just as an aside, do you think leaving important decisions on production to local worker committees is feasible in an era where trade is international, agility is prized, and consistency is expected?

Andoran

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Smarnil le couard wrote:

I wish it had been so well planned, but our former president Sarkozy is REALLY the sort of guy who would start a war because 1) a known media-made pseudo intellectual just told him there was an emergency to do so; 2) it would make him look good; 3) Khadaffi pissed him off three years earlier during an official visit. Don't forget the human factor, especially those with megalomaniacal tendancies.

Thank you for the some of the French background to this act of selfless humanitarian intervention, Comrade le Couard. But I am curious as to why you think I think it was well-planned?

Because I think the Western imperialists have mostly been scrambling to stay one step ahead of events this whole "Arab Spring."

And the Arab Spring has been following the pattern of the French and Russian revolution so far (Mad at Unremovable power for not meeting basic needs, overthrow power and install new government, needs still not met as issues systemic rather than driven by leadership...)

Neither of which ended well.

Shadow Lodge

ciretose wrote:


Neither of which ended well.

Depends on when you call the end.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:

AMiB already called me out on the Republicans, and, yeah, he's right about the tariffs and stuff, but I'm pretty sure (could be wrong) that there have never actually been any totally free markets in world history.

There isn't any such thing as a totally free market. Markets are only protected from market failure (chiefly monopolism) by government regulation. You only have a market because of functions that define the existence of a government; for example, without government, you can't have enforceable contracts. A "truly" free market somehow enforces contracts without anyone actually using force to do so.

Good to know. I was hedging my bets.

---
Well, then I even understand less what that whole free markets equals racism argument is about.

The previous two periods in American history of, I don't know, Keynesianism or whatever, weren't exactly good times for blacks, either. Lynchings proceeded apace throughout the 30s, and, as I recall, the New Deal found lots of clever and tricksy ways to not include black people. I seem to recall there being quite a bit of racial tension during the Democratic administrations of the sixties, too.

I think it's not so much "free markets equals racism" as a refutation of the claim that free markets will naturally do away with racism. I'd say free markets are orthogonal to racism. Possibly because they get caught in local optima.

Andoran

BigNorseWolf wrote:
ciretose wrote:


Neither of which ended well.

Depends on when you call the end.

I think the Terror by the Jacobins and and the War between the Reds and the Whites ended the peaceful transition to an ideologically optimal governance part of the discussion.


thejeff wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:

AMiB already called me out on the Republicans, and, yeah, he's right about the tariffs and stuff, but I'm pretty sure (could be wrong) that there have never actually been any totally free markets in world history.

There isn't any such thing as a totally free market. Markets are only protected from market failure (chiefly monopolism) by government regulation. You only have a market because of functions that define the existence of a government; for example, without government, you can't have enforceable contracts. A "truly" free market somehow enforces contracts without anyone actually using force to do so.

Good to know. I was hedging my bets.

---
Well, then I even understand less what that whole free markets equals racism argument is about.

The previous two periods in American history of, I don't know, Keynesianism or whatever, weren't exactly good times for blacks, either. Lynchings proceeded apace throughout the 30s, and, as I recall, the New Deal found lots of clever and tricksy ways to not include black people. I seem to recall there being quite a bit of racial tension during the Democratic administrations of the sixties, too.

I think it's not so much "free markets equals racism" as a refutation of the claim that free markets will naturally do away with racism. I'd say free markets are orthogonal to racism. Possibly because they get caught in local optima.

Ah, I missed that part.

I have no idea what "orthogonal" means.


Scott Betts wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Collective ownership implies one entity controls all decisions. I agree 1% controlling all means of production is not great, but 1 entity is more dangerous.

Well, again, this might be No True Scotsman stuff, but actually decisions would be made by the local workers committees.

I don't really get into debates over the merits of Communism usually, but just as an aside, do you think leaving important decisions on production to local worker committees is feasible in an era where trade is international, agility is prized, and consistency is expected?

Yes, I think it's feasible. The chief contradiction of capitalism has not changed since 1848--economic crises are caused, for the most part, not by scarcity but by overproduction. Some famous stat from like 20 years ago: we produce enough food to feed the world, like, 5 times over but there are 900 million people around the planet without enough to eat.

Anyway, yeah, after wiping out the profit motive, it wouldn't be terribly difficult to run production geared for human need. We are all on this thing called the internet. Imagine how easy it would be, for example, to go on-line and let, say, the diaper factory know how many diapers you need. Some dude at the diaper factory checks the computer, sees how many diapers are needed and, presto!, diaper quota for the quarter set.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
ciretose wrote:


Neither of which ended well.

Depends on when you call the end.
I think the Terror by the Jacobins and and the War between the Reds and the Whites ended the peaceful transition to an ideologically optimal governance part of the discussion.

People talk a lot of crap about the Reign of Terror, but the Jacobins came to power something like two years after the beginning of the War of the First Coalition (which Robespierre had opposed) and six months after the previous government had provoked the Catholic-royalist revolt in the Vendee.

But in both cases, you're talking about conflicts created by civil war situations in which the counterrevolutionaries were allied with foreign invaders (Prussia and Austria in the first, a coalition of something like 14 imperialist powers, including the USA, in the second) to try to crush the revolution.

So, I take your argument to mean: the ruling class will rather ally with foreign invaders and shoot us down in the streets rather than share their shiznit. To which I reply, "yeah, I know" and provide a pithy Frederick Douglass quote: Power concedes nothing without a struggle.

And before A Man in Black comes in here and starts talking about how I want to pile the bodies in the street, I would ask: How many bodies are stacked up in the streets right now? In Falluja? Najaf? Majer? Kandahar? etc., etc., etc., ad nauseam.


Note that Libertarianism is not directly equal to Anarcho Capitalism.

Much the same way that Socialism is not directly equal to Maost Communism.

In both cases, the former regards the latter as "What happens with sophomore sociology students try to run things according to the Pure Idealized Form of {X}."

Libertarians are not after the removal of all government. They ARE in favor of decentralizing it as far down the chain as is possible, much the same way Socialists are in favor of decentralizing the ownership of production as far down the chain as possible, because both of them have seen the shibboleths that rise up when power (political or economic) is too concentrated.

The people with the brains, will and ambition to succeed in a representative government larger than roughly a state assembly level, or Midwestern state level, are largely exactly the people you don't want exercising that power.

The people with the brains, will and ambition to successfully run a for profit corporation lending money to other for profit corporations with balance sheets in the billions are largely exactly the people you don't want running your economy.

As a Libertarian, I feel that the barn was set fire after the horses were let lose by Wichard v Filburn. That opened up the use of the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution to nearly any legal contortion that can meet the following criterion:

1) It involves money. As Wickard v Filburn indicates, it doesn't even need to involve actual money, but simply NOT buying something because you're making it yourself is deemed to be regulable as interstate commerce.
2) It involves state lines.

It turned a limitation of state rights (the inability to set tarrifs at state borders) into a sledgehammer. This sledgehammer was used to create the Civil Rights Act of '64, among other power creeps by the Federal Government. It's now being used to mandate education policy on a national level, because the Federal Government disburses funding for education across state lines.

As a Libertarian, I don't want that hammer to exist at all. The fact that that hammer can be used to batter down walls of racial segregation doesn't mean that the hammer is a universal good; nor does it mean those who feel that that hammer shouldn't exist are secretly pining away for the good old days of Jim Crow laws, open membership of the KKK and "Well, y'see, he needed lynchin'" as a valid legal defense.

Nor does the fact that the barriers were knocked down with that hammer mean that they would not have eroded and come down on their own; there are people (Thomas Sowell and Bill Cosby among them, so not just White Republican Asshats) who feel that the use of that hammer, swung a second time with The Great Society, has resulted in a paternalistic racism inherent in Welfare {"Here, have a check, go play basketball, don't kill no white kids.} has turned the black society that existed prior to 1960.

A 25 year shift between 1950 and 1970 happened; circa 1950, the percentage of children raised by single black mothers was about 5%. By 1975, it was over 70%. At its peak around 1990, it was over 80%.

There are a lot of causes for it; it's trendy and chic to only cite the ones that support your political biases. I see it as a confluence of economics, unwritten class consciousness in the US, the War on Drugs, and the complete and utter lack of incentives given to the black community to actually stay together as families, get joint earnings, and rise themselves out of the mire.

And I think that in the rush to smash racism, and demand that everything be made into "oppressor and victim", that hammer is partially responsible for the destruction of black culture as it existed from about 1910 to 1950, which, outside of the South, was lower middle class, largely assimilating into American culture, and had a growing rate of home ownership.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:


Yes, I think it's feasible. The chief contradiction of capitalism has not changed since 1848--economic crises are caused, for the most part, not by scarcity but by overproduction. Some famous stat from like 20 years ago: we produce enough food to feed the world, like, 5 times over but there are 900 million people around the planet without enough to eat.

Anyway, yeah, after wiping out the profit motive, it wouldn't be terribly difficult to run production geared for human need. We are all on this thing called the internet. Imagine how easy it would be, for example, to go on-line and let, say, the diaper factory know how many diapers you need. Some dude at the diaper factory checks the computer, sees how many diapers are needed and, presto!, diaper quota for the quarter set.

I think this is one of those discussions that you and I should have over beers, recognizing that we might as well be a tree sloth trying to explain calculus to a parrot, or a parrot trying to explain a sestina to the tree sloth, for our odds of convincing each other that the other side has merit.

Doesn't mean it wouldn't be fun and that we'd both showcase the fun "Well, that doesn't have an answer yet, because we've never had a world where it could be tried." arguments at each other.

Price is a signal, and interfering with that signal is what causes those overproduction and underproduction issues to happen. As friction is reduced on transaction costs (and the Internet is a beautiful example of a reduction of the coefficient of economic friction), profit margins also drop.


AdAstraGames wrote:
And I think that in the rush to smash racism, and demand that everything be made into "oppressor and victim", that hammer is partially responsible for the destruction of black culture as it existed from about 1910 to 1950, which, outside of the South, was lower middle class, largely assimilating into American culture, and had a growing rate of home ownership.

How far North do we need to go to stop seeing evidence of violent racism during 1910-1950?


Irontruth wrote:
AdAstraGames wrote:
And I think that in the rush to smash racism, and demand that everything be made into "oppressor and victim", that hammer is partially responsible for the destruction of black culture as it existed from about 1910 to 1950, which, outside of the South, was lower middle class, largely assimilating into American culture, and had a growing rate of home ownership.
How far North do we need to go to stop seeing evidence of violent racism during 1910-1950?

How far in the future do we have to go before this stops happening?


AdAstraGames wrote:
And I think that in the rush to smash racism, and demand that everything be made into "oppressor and victim", that hammer is partially responsible for the destruction of black culture as it existed from about 1910 to 1950, which, outside of the South, was lower middle class, largely assimilating into American culture, and had a growing rate of home ownership.

Which was also based, in large part, on unionized (or soon-to-be unionized) manufacturing jobs. Where did all of those go?

"I think this is one of those discussions that you and I should have over beers, recognizing that we might as well be a tree sloth trying to explain calculus to a parrot, or a parrot trying to explain a sestina to the tree sloth, for our odds of convincing each other that the other side has merit."

That sounds like fun, but I prefer big fat spliffs to beers. Maybe we should do it in Amsterdam?


Aarrgh! Must stop politrolling and finish my book!


AdAstraGames wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
AdAstraGames wrote:
And I think that in the rush to smash racism, and demand that everything be made into "oppressor and victim", that hammer is partially responsible for the destruction of black culture as it existed from about 1910 to 1950, which, outside of the South, was lower middle class, largely assimilating into American culture, and had a growing rate of home ownership.
How far North do we need to go to stop seeing evidence of violent racism during 1910-1950?

How far in the future do we have to go before this stops happening?

Are you making a claim that blacks are oppressing whites in the US?

Or are you trying to show me that after 400 years of racial violence, it's very believable that there would be some backlash from the oppressed?

Edit: I just realized you're doing the same thing as Frogboy. Shame on me for not seeing it earlier.

Go ahead and cry reverse/counter racism all you want. I know you're wrong. I'm not able to show it to you, or convince you of it though and that makes me sad.

I'm not going to debate you on racism... the musical interlude.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
So, I take your argument to mean: the ruling class will rather ally with foreign invaders and shoot us down in the streets rather than share their shiznit.

What you mean "us," Goblin?

And now without all the Lord Dice nonsense: I don't really expect this to change your mind, Doodlebug, and if you think voting is for ninnies, that's you business, but I am curious as to why you see voting and supporting a realistic communist political agenda as mutually exclusive.

It seems like you talk about imperialism, plutocracy and tyranny and follow those (perfectly valid) subjects with, "Rabble-rousing is the only legitimate for of political action!" Keep in mind that I'm not saying that the rabble that shouldn't be roused, just that voting takes so little effort that even if it is completely ineffective, you haven't lost anything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

[Peeks back in and puts down Billy Bathgate]

There are lots of things going on here, Plutocrat.

Spoiler:

First, as you know, the line between me being serious and me being funny (at least I think so) is very, very thin. "Voting is for ninnies!" for example, was a joke I said, like a year ago, and it made Comrade Curtin laugh so much he repeated it when I met him in person, so I figured I'd keep it.

Second, I'm actually not opposed to voting in principle. I did it last year during the Teamsters Presidential election, for example. But, as you again know, I take my Marx seriously. I believe in the necessity of the working classes to sever political relations with the capitalist class, form their own party that speaks for their interests, etc., etc. If I were living in the UK, I could, possibly, from time to time, vote for the Labour Party (or, more likely, for Scargill--is he still around British Paizonians?); or if I were in Greece I would have either voted for SYRIZA or the Commies. But, living in the United States as I do, there's no f#+!ing way I would ever vote for the Democratic Party of Slavery, Imperialist Massacre and Union-Busting. Ain't gonna happen ever.

Third, I truly believe the class struggle is more important than the ballot. I think if the Wisconsin teachers had went on general strike, that would have shut down Walker quick. If Verizon had went to the mats, if the West Coast port shutdowns had been real labor actions instead of well-meaning but ineffectual Occupiers (and I don't mean to denigrate what they did, but...), if there were actually an aroused rabble, you'd see Obama and Rahm Emanuel and that f+!@ who nixed single-payer FLY to the left, hand out relief money and jobs, etc., etc. And then I still wouldn't vote for them.

Fourth, I get insulted when people tell me that because I don't vote I am responsible for what is going on or I am uninformed or I am not a good citizen or whatever. Makes me really mad. It probably is true for a lot of people, but it's obviously not the case for me. So, I might bend the stick too far the other way sometimes. So, I'm a politroll. Sue me.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

[Peeks back in and puts down Billy Bathgate]

There are lots of things going on here, Plutocrat.

** spoiler omitted **...

But it's working within the system that gives me the opportunity to short-sheet m'lord Dice's bed! Which goblin do I point at when he discovers my mischief? No comment.

Shadow Lodge

Adastra Games wrote:
It turned a limitation of state rights (the inability to set tarrifs at state borders) into a sledgehammer. This sledgehammer was used to create the Civil Rights Act of '64, among other power creeps by the Federal Government. It's now being used to mandate education policy on a national level, because the Federal Government disburses funding for education across state lines.

States don't have rights, people do. Its very hard for a the federal government to grant less rights than a state. I don't see anything in the states track record that would indicate that its inherently a better unit for defending our rights. 50 states racing to the bottom for pollution and rights is the problem, not the solution.


Scott Betts wrote:
Actually, I don't think many people favored Obama for his positions on civil liberties. That is, frankly, not high on lists of voter priorities. That said, Obama has done more to advance homosexual rights than any President in history, so even after one term history will likely remember him as making at least some strides in the realm of civil rights.

And he was opposed to gay marriage when he was elected. He's not causing change. Change is altering his policy.

Scott Betts wrote:
If you don't have the slightest clue what either will do, you haven't done enough research. Obama's second term will look fairly similar to his first in terms of executive action. Romney is harder to predict because of his rampant duplicity, but you can be relatively assured of him comporting himself as a model Republican President, because if he's elected he will have re-election in mind.

What research will tell me if Mitt Romney will go back on most of his campaign promises the same way Obama did ... the same way the fiscally responsible George W. Bush did etc, etc? I haven't been able to reach Ms. Cleo for a while now.

A Man In Black wrote:
You aren't assumed to be a criminal without cause. You aren't assumed to be poor without cause. People assume you speak English (or whatever language, if you're not American).

People assuming that minorities don't speak English or are poor is what's holding them back?

A Man In Black wrote:
People don't discriminate against you. You don't ever have to worry about race or racists if you don't want to.

I grew up in city that is a 50-50 mix of black and white. I have been jumped before and there is a very good chance that my skin color (and attire) was the deciding factor in their decision to pick me. Trust me, I had much more to fear at school than they did especially since I rarely ever went out of my way to fit into social norms. I never let that hold me back. I don't even know how that could hold me back. People can be mean to each other for lots of different reasons. It happens to all of us. It doesn't matter who you are, everyone is going to grow up with challenges to face and obstacles to overcome. Geeks, in particular, almost always face many social challenges growing up and typically do quite well for themselves later in life. There has to be more to it than this. It's not 50-100 years ago any longer.

Now if African Americans are being turned down for jobs that they are more than qualified for or loan applications that their credit score is more than acceptable for then you might have something. But it seems to me that businesses go out of their way to make sure they don't even give the perception of racial bigotry because the hammer comes down pretty hard and the negative publicity is very damaging.

A Man In Black wrote:
Also, any time anyone mentions "reverse racism", I'm going to link this.

Cute comic ... but very misleading. I've spent my entire life believing in equality so I don't see how this could be relevant to me. I certainly didn't step on anyone's back to get where I am today. If I am supposed to pay for the sin of my race, well, that kind of sounds a lot like reverse racism. Well, let's be honest. There's no such thing. There's only racism and equality.

I started my life at the bottom just like most other people. I was out on my own before I started my senior year of high school. There was no welfare or government assistance for me. There weren't many people to fall back on except for a couple friends that would let me crash. If I had some special privilege or advantage, I honestly didn't see it. In fact, every black person that I knew growing up that followed the well-known guide of what you need to do live a more comfortable life (do decent in school, go to college or pick up a trade, stay out of trouble) have all moved on and have done well for themselves. Many of them are doing financially better than I.

A Man In Black wrote:

Examples, please.

Be warned, this is an invitation for me to rip into you. Feel free to walk this one back.

Yeah, I'm not really interested in getting into this. Just put this in the back of your mind. Any time and for any reason if all men and women are not treated equally (particularly by the government) the overall outcome will be bad. Total equality, not collectivism, will always produce the best possible result in the long run which is what we all desire, right? You don't have to believe me but maybe, just maybe, someday you'll see it too.

A Man In Black wrote:
The GOP didn't want Mitt Romney. I'm not sure if you've noticed but until he got the nomination and the party machine got behind him (or else they'd just lose the election), everyone was clamoring for Anyone But Romney. The...

The conservative base didn't want Romney, true. But I'm talking about the party itself had him picked out from the beginning. I'm talking about the people who really run the show here. It's really easy to spot because they apparently own or at least control the major media outlets. One candidate becomes the golden boy in the media and the rest are demonized. Did you follow Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primaries? And hell, who's this Barack Obama character, here? Why have I never heard of him before? Oh, okay. He's been a Senator for like two weeks or something. No wonder. Romney was the golden boy in the media all the way up until they started pitting him against Obama and just as I predicted, he became the new Sarah Palin, the target of ridicule to guide the masses to candidate that's been already handpicked to be our leader for the next four years.


Frogboy wrote:
And he was opposed to gay marriage when he was elected. He's not causing change. Change is altering his policy.

He was opposed to gay marriage prior to his election because it was seen as a politically volatile topic that might cost him the Presidency were it to become public knowledge that he supported gay marriage - a fear that turned out to be well-founded, as California made gay marriage illegal via popular vote the very same day Obama was elected.

Obama was never privately opposed to gay marriage, no matter what he said while campaigning. His "evolution" on the topic was more like a slow reveal.

Quote:
What research will tell me if Mitt Romney will go back on most of his campaign promises the same way Obama did ...

Obama has not gone back on most of his campaign promises. Politifact tracks the status of the President's campaign promises versus policy enacted to fulfill them. Fully 59% of Obama's promises have been kept or are rated as being in the works. Another 15% were compromised on in order to bring them about. 9% were stalled. Only 17% of Obama's campaign promises are rated as 'Promise Broken'.

Please stop spreading quasi-fashionable mis-truths.


Irontruth wrote:


Are you making a claim that blacks are oppressing whites in the US?

Or are you trying to show me that after 400 years of racial violence, it's very believable that there would be some backlash from the oppressed?

Nope. I'm saying that random a+$#@$#s will be random a!%!$!!s to anyone who looks different from them and comes into their turf regardless of race. And the FBI crime statistics for conviction rates show that black-on-black crime is the majority of crime in the US, followed by black-on-white crime...and white-on-black crime is miniscule compared to both of those.

Yet white-on-black crime is always racism. Always. It's always yet another incident in the litany of bondage and woe.

Why do cops who work inner city beats presume "black male in hopped up car" is a thug? Because it's a sorting algorithm. It's lazy. Why are cops likelier to plant evidence on a black guy? Because they've been given power and the ability to use it...and it's likelier to stick on a black guy.

Are you saying that that "He had it coming to him, because of the oppression black people have suffered for 400 years."? If so, you lost.

I've helped about a dozen black families move out of the cesspit of the ghetto, into homes. I didn't get them out of the ghetto myself. I helped; they did the hard part, and they're the ones who made the choice to leave and set up new lives for themselves in better school districts, with longer commutes.

How did I do this? I got them CRA mortgages. So, mobility can happen. Mobility can happen to anyone who's motivated enough; will they get the same outcome? Probably not. On the other hand, I still get thank-you cards, nearly 20 years later, and pictures of people burning their mortgages having made the last payment, and pictures of kids graduating from high school.

You want to help black people?

Get rid of the currently dysfunctional black culture.

Teach black people how to save money; live on 85% of what you earn.

Teach them how to start a business. Get 30 customers and hit a release schedule, or perform a service they'll pay for. God knows that the number of services being offered in black communities are abysmal; it's why the stereotype of the Korean grocery store in the 'hood exists.

Teach them that there's no future in perpetual victimhood.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Adastra Games wrote:
It turned a limitation of state rights (the inability to set tarrifs at state borders) into a sledgehammer. This sledgehammer was used to create the Civil Rights Act of '64, among other power creeps by the Federal Government. It's now being used to mandate education policy on a national level, because the Federal Government disburses funding for education across state lines.

States don't have rights, people do. Its very hard for a the federal government to grant less rights than a state. I don't see anything in the states track record that would indicate that its inherently a better unit for defending our rights. 50 states racing to the bottom for pollution and rights is the problem, not the solution.

One Federal government deciding that mandatory alternate side street parking for snow removal needs to apply to both Alaska and Florida is as much of a problem.

Have you actually read Wickard vs. Filburn?

The argument on decentralization of power is that some are going to "race to the bottom". And some aren't. And people will have a continuum of choices in government to live under, with several functions reserved for the Federal level to reduce barriers on mobility, and provide common defense. I also contend that the federal government has the right to open courts for citizens to sue polluters.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
AdAstraGames wrote:
And I think that in the rush to smash racism, and demand that everything be made into "oppressor and victim", that hammer is partially responsible for the destruction of black culture as it existed from about 1910 to 1950, which, outside of the South, was lower middle class, largely assimilating into American culture, and had a growing rate of home ownership.

Which was also based, in large part, on unionized (or soon-to-be unionized) manufacturing jobs. Where did all of those go?

I'm an evil capitalist (tm). I work for myself, and own two small businesses.

Neither of my businesses have employees. Every single time I've looked at hiring someone on an actual hourly pay rate basis, rather than hiring freelancers, I've looked at what they'd be doing and bought a piece of automation instead.

I've also worked in a bank (doing CRA mortgages) and worked in "union shops" - and had to smuggle convention displays past the Teamsters who said it was a guaranteed union job that could not be avoided...and even though I was perfectly capable of hauling three trips of cartons to a booth, I had to pay them 200 bucks to do it for loading fees.

Nice racket. Unions have become the new medieval guilds in a lot of ways.


That's it, blame the victim!

It's only legitimate racism if they're denied something we think they deserve.


Irontruth wrote:

That's it, blame the victim!

It's only legitimate racism if they're denied something we think they deserve.

Hey, at least you're living down to your promise of not debating this. Nice job!


It is pretty blatant victim blaming. *tsk tsk*

So on this "citizens suing over pollution" trip. I'll bite, as long as people can sue on behalf of wildlife that otherwise has no voice in the courts. Ya know, the trees cut down, the pine martin, the microbes no longer able to sustain themselves due to stream contamination. That sort of stuff.


AdAstraGames wrote:


Nice racket. Unions have become the new medieval guilds in a lot of ways.

Yes, and corporations have become the new city states and empires and the ultra-rich are the new aristocracy.

Let the heads roll.


AdAstraGames wrote:

I'm an evil capitalist (tm). I work for myself, and own two small businesses.

Neither of my businesses have employees. Every single time I've looked at hiring someone on an actual hourly pay rate basis, rather than hiring freelancers, I've looked at what they'd be doing and bought a piece of automation instead.

I've also worked in a bank (doing CRA mortgages) and worked in "union shops" - and had to smuggle convention displays past the Teamsters who said it was a guaranteed union job that could not be avoided...and even though I was perfectly capable of hauling three trips of cartons to a booth, I had to pay them 200 bucks to do it for loading fees.

Nice racket. Unions have become the new medieval guilds in a lot of ways.

Hee hee!

My brothers and sisters in the Trade Show Division have always had a bad rep.

I might be willing to sympthize a little, but you've already self-described yourself as an evil capitalist (TM), so, you'll pardon the absence of tears.

"Have become the new medieval guilds"? Man, you're like 100 years late!

But I've got to get going. One of my members has been trying to get his vacation check for over three weeks now and I've got to file a grievance.

Vive le Teamsters!


Oh, I wouldn't expect tears, Comrade. :)

Again, I suspect you and I would kill many many beers wasting each others times. :)

Being an evil capitalist (tm) means I only work half days, and I get to decide which 12 hours count.


AdAstraGames wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

That's it, blame the victim!

It's only legitimate racism if they're denied something we think they deserve.

Hey, at least you're living down to your promise of not debating this. Nice job!

Some of your ideas towards the end of that sounded interesting. But I would rather go listen to music than pay attention to people who want to blame victims for their plight.

Shadow Lodge

AdAstraGames wrote:


Have you actually read Wickard vs. Filburn?

Please make a point.

I have argued against the ability of the federal government to write laws restricting individuals. (and the recent decision re healthcare shows that there IS a limit to how far they can stretch interstate commerce) but i just don't get this argument that state government is somehow either not government or is for some reason better government.

Quote:
The argument on decentralization of power is that some are going to "race to the bottom". And some aren't. And people will have a continuum of choices in government to live under

Which assumes a level of mobility that doesn't exist and simply ignores the reality that not everyone can make a living running your own business: an individual craftsman simply cannot compete with a factory. If texas factories have no minimum wage and work at your own risk safety standards then every state is either going to have to follow suit or loose their factories. The free market has spoken, the free market says pay boxer nothing and send him to the glue factory when he gets hurt.

Screw that, we can do better. We HAVE done better.

Setting things up the way you want to objectively sucks. We've tried it before. The only people it was good for were the rockefellers.

Quote:

with several functions reserved for the Federal level to reduce barriers on mobility, and provide common defense. I also contend that the federal government has the right to open courts for citizens to sue polluters.

Good luck getting a lawyer with your minimum wage salary.. well less than minimum wage because you abolished that, to fight billion dollar corporations and their legions of soulless lawyers willing to tie your case up in red tape until you die of lung cancer... which shouldn't take that long given the amount of dioxin they bribed the state legislature into allowing into the air.

301 to 350 of 635 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Third party voting: Throwing your vote away or the only Path to Progress? 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.