RPG Superstar 2013
|
Thanks for the veiled insult. Right or wrong, at least have the b$##s to come out and call someone stupid. Who do you think you're fooling?
I believe my point was that the page is beneath you. Not to insult you. The assumption is YOU can have a productive conversation, but your SOURCE is not up to the challenge. Also, to respond that it's a veiled insult and not respond to the numerous classic errors in the page that you provided is, once again, a logical fallicy. If you realize now that you should have proffered a better resource, simply say so. There's no harm in that. Someone in this talk recently pointed out that folk sometimes don't admit being proven wrong out of pride. Let's neither you nor I be that guy.
I didn't read anything saying all government waste is the fault of one group of people. What is it called when you use something someone didn't say as an argument against their case?
The conclusion of the book [i]Mind of a Millionaire]/i] suggests that successful people overwhelmingly have one personality trait: integrity. That is not always going to be the case. Just like some people who are not successful are down on their luck, but will get there. But people who are successful largely share accountability and work ethic as values.
Then there is the issue of demagoguery. If people weren't elected to office by lying about tax cuts for the rich or claiming that failure was systemic or racist in nature, one would have a stronger argument that success and failure weren't an individual choice. But because we know differently, that argument is false. Sometimes, failure or mediocrity is comfortable and success takes hard work. The people who choose to struggle with survival ought to be allowed some consequences of failure. Don't interpret that to mean we should just leave people out in the cold. But sometimes, a little cold can get them moving again.
Conversely, extending unemployment benefits for two years rewards inactivity. Allowing someone to declare themselves disabled when they can still walk or talk or perform a service is wasteful and allows someone to settle for a fraction of the life they could have. It drains the goverment (meaning the taxpayers) and fails the person so coddled. Look at the gret city of Detroit. That place has been ruled by one mindset (and I don't mean one party) for decades. Yet it is ruined. Bad policy combines with corrupt demagoguing so that self-serving politicians pursue a false sense of 'blame the other guy' instead of working for solutions. SOmetimes solutions require tough decisions. Conservatives argue that paying more welfare and cowing to corrupt union demands is not a solution, and requires no courage.
As my final caveat, I didn't just say unions are corrupt. But there came a point when union leaders were in bed with corrupt politicians and criminals as often as not. So long as the union exists to perpetuate itself as a political entity, and not to maintain an even standard for the workers whose dues they are confiscating, they no longer represent labor to management, they represent themselves to government, and that results in people in detroit getting paid $30/hour to do a crossword puzzle. Such behavior drains the system. It isn't that the union workers are bad, it is that they are sometimes led by folk who care more for keeping the cushy union job and hobnobbing with the importantpeople, than for helping those who allow them to exists. A local construction union here routinely spnds its time organizing volunteers to wave a big 'shame on you' banner in front of businesses that choose to hire out-of-city contractors. The union workers are told they are being screwed in the name of the almighty dollar. That is a lie. They are being screwed because their companies can't afford to compete with less strangled businesses. Those out of town guys can pay their men, pay for extra travel, hotels, etc, and stil bid under for the job. And they seem to be getting good looking buildings up in a hurry. If the University of Tulsa or Metro Christian Academy could have a building built for less in less time by a local company, and not have miserable picket lines at their front doors, they would. But the union exists for itself, and makes demands the market won't bear. The union workers are petitioning for free when they could be working for money.
Sorry to spend so much time on unions. I mentioned Detroit and there we go. The real point, is Detroit,Chicago and others have decades of progressive rule, and are in big trouble. They need to consider a change in leadership, and see if they can't be inspired to stand back up on their own, without conditional stimulus money being used to coddle bad beliefs while reducing the dollar and inflating our debt.
The conclusion of the book Mind of a Millionaire suggests that successful people overwhelmingly have one personality trait: integrity.
Not that I don't agree with the rest of your post; you and I seem very close in attitude when it comes to fiscal views, as opposed to social ones. One thing, though: the author of Mind of a Millionaire is himself a millionaire. For him to tout his own integrity would seem self-congratulatory, rather than honest. Also, if I understood it correctly, the main distinguishing trait was seeing opportunities vs. problems, which has little to do with inegrity (as witnessed by Trump, Madoff, Stewart, Spears, Lohan, et al., ad nauseum).
|
I'm still waiting for you to come up with ways to eliminate the waste. My idea, that maybe the government should stop stealing money I work my ass off for and wasting 80% of it before it gets to the people a program was allegedly set up to help obviously isn't your cup of tea.And, no, my argument was lost in your "straw man" b~&#~@*!, which, I've found over the years to mean "I will dismiss your position by pithy use of phrases from a symbolic logic class I got a "c" in, rather than offer a logical reason why my side of the argument (in this case, sucking billions of dollars out of the economy and wasting in ways that do not strengthen said economy) is the path we should take."
Point of fact: I got an A. But your anti-intellectual bias is beside the point.
Are you even reading what I'm writing? Stop trying to win for a minute. Seriously. Allow me to repeat myself:
Fact: Some people who are wealthy didn't earn their wealth, and instead simply got lucky, cheated, and/or exploited others.Fact: Some people who are poor are lazy, stupid, or both, and need to shut up and lie in the bed they've made for themselves, because they're nothing but a drain on society.
And so the truth of whether our society truly rewards merit (what I believe to be the crux of our disagreement), isn't absolute. Like most truths, the answer is in there someplace, and exactly where is something I'd like to hear your views on, because I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong. But absolute declarations don't lend themselves to the sort of communication. Nor do polarizing accusations of laziness, stupidity, and thuggery on the part of the "other side" (a line which seems quite clear to you).
I mean this kindly, and hope you will take it as such, but the sooner we all learn that the world isn't black and white, the better off we will all be.
Let me be blunt: The crux of your argument is irrelevant to me. I don't give two s%!+s about the Paris Hiltons of the world, because her ancestor, Conrad, worked his ASS off to build his empire. He decided to leave it to his offspring, and some of it would up in Paris's bank account. Who f%%+ing cares? Oh, yeah, a bunch of a##!+~+s who seem to think the universe is supposed to be "fair". I don't give two s%+!s about people who perpetuate their cycle of stupidity by having kids they can't afford, or doing dope, or drinking too much, or whatever. I don't give two s+!#s about people who provide a crutch to a+#*$~$s who ruin their own lives. I give a s*++ what I do every day to make life better for my family and myself. I look at the decisions I made in the past (and there have been some doozies, let me tell you), and I don't cry, I don't whine that life is unfair, I learn from them, and I strive to do better.
And I am offended that anyone thinks that taking what I have busted my ass off for to give to someone who cannot deal with the consequences of their actions is right. I am offended that anyone wants to keep wasting my money, that I earned, in the same way they have been wasting it for seventy years. I am offended that people will try to find sinister motives for why someone would voluntarily give of their own fruits to the less fortunate, instead of just maybe acknowldging that they might just be better human beings than the rest of us.
And, in an unrelated, but possibly more on THE op's topic rant, I am offended that anyone truly believes that the Democratic party in America is any less hearless, less corrupt, less criminal, less evil, or in any way less repugnant than their counterparts acrosss the aisle.
Oh, yeah, I already stated that position to the cruz of your argument several posts ago as well. You want to know why this country is divided? Because people in this country actually believe either of the two major parties are worth a f&@+. They allowed the criminal douchebags in Washington to split us into camps, bleating like sheep over and over "Our party's good, your's is evil!"
Yeah. F+#$. God we're f@$~ed.
Dishonest demagoguery is far from the same thing as an established state religion. Again, many voters are Christians. That in no way is the same thing as having a state religion. Clearly I would take issue with Barack Obama's ideas about Christianity, seeing that he spent his adult life in a church that preaches, hate and redistribution, rather than any gospel a Christian could recognize.I believe celebrrating our religious heritage is important to making sure we don't lose our national identitiy. You don't have to be a Christian to appreciate that Christian founders felt their faith could survive in a free market of ideas, or that our nation still sets the standard for political and religious freedom.Say, you don't get out much do you?
I know that sounds harsh, but seriously, you really think the US is the pinnacle of political and religious freedom?
How can a two-party system amount to much freedom? By having the illusion that voting for "third party" people actually makes a difference?
How can there be religious freedom when you can't be elected to the highest office in the country without declaring that you're a Christian?
I've never been to his church, so I can't say what or what hasn't been said there, I'd guess neither have you (besides, my point had nothing to do with Obama at all). But going by hearsay or second-hand witnesses, would you then also agree that many other Christian churches engage in hateful speech against other members of society (atheists, homosexuals, other faiths (even other Christian denominations) even politicians and specific politics)?
And it's okay for Obama and I to disagree about religion. I don't think he shouldn't be president for his difference in beliefs (there are far too many reasons to get rid of him than that).
I claim freedom of religion because the Constitution guarantees it and we have it. Again, there's no religious requirement by law. You simply kiss a baby and pretend to have faith because there's a lot of voters out there whos votes you want. Witness Kerry's sudden rush back to Catholicism when the chips were down. He didn't have to be a Christian to run, he just claimed to be one to get votes. In no way does this mean America requires you, in letter or spirit, to be a Christian to be president. Supposing Kerry lost as many votes from his pretense as he picked up? It might be worse. Some might have chosen to vote for a third party because f Kerry's suden claim to be a Christian, while a lot of Christians flatly didn't believe the clam and so weren't swayed. Finally, some people who didn't care about his faith, might have felt he was being dishonest by suddnely copping one, and lost a taste for him whether they vote for Christian candidates or not. It was his choice to make, and by no means is he compeled to adopt Christianity in order to win the office.
Which goes to prove that there really isn't religious freedom, just the perception/illusion thereof.
Otherwise I'd like you to say with a straight face that you think an atheist, Muslim, Hindu, Satanic, Wiccan, Norse Pagan or even an openly gay politician would have a fair chance of becoming President.I think the two-party system comment comes from a little posturing. We have a two-party system. We also are among the freest people in the world. The system has nothing to do with that freedom or lack thereof.
This leads back to David's initial first point on his list and something that hasn't been answered yet (it's been asked by Paul Watson among others I think). HOW are you among the freest people in the world... nay, nix that, you said that the US sets the standard for freedom, meaning that you think you're the leading nation. That's just empty posturing if you can't back it up by facts.
How does the US have more freedom than say... Denmark (my country of origin)?By setting the standard for religious freedom, I mean that we set the standard at our inception, and maintain that standard by supporting freedom abroad. I was not making a heavy-handed claim about the religious oppresiion of other free countries. I refer you to my comments about American exceptionalism above. It isn't that Americans think we are the only light in the world or any such thing. It is that we enjoin our free and valuable friends to promote freedom everywhere.
That's a different position than saying that you set the standard in political and religious freedom, wouldn't you say?
Derek, it's time to take your meds now.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
You're both right.
What's upseting is we have forgotten how to compromise on solutions instead of on principle. Compromise should mean we can act on what we agree on and sort out the rest. Now it has become 'you must capitulate some, and I will reward you for it', as in the case of Ben Nelson.
Consider health care. We could all probably agree that reducing the waste involed in defensive medicine and some tax reform would solve some problems. You might not agree that is the best place to start, but it should at least be a part of the conversation. It isn't. Tort reform has been completely ignored. Attempts to add tort reform to any version of the dozen health care bills offered this last year were killed in committee. The entire conversation about tax-free health savings accounts, reducing red tape for development of pharmaceuticals, non-COBRA portability, and more was cut short. ANd then that idiot Grayson shouted from the microphone that the Republican plan was for people to just die quickly.
Seven or eight options, never considered by one side, is hardly reason to suggest there aren't alternatives. And NONE of those alternative raise the deficit, increase taxes, or impose a governemnt employee between you and your doctor at any time.
My point is, we should, as a nation, be more concerned wuith what we can agree on that our differences. You will never convince me that a public option is not a shady way to get us to single payer. I might not ever convince you that healthcare has been demagogued as a way to increase government dependence instead of solve an actual problem. But we can agree that not raising taxes if we dont' have to is a good thing, so let's find ways not to do that first. Maybe I turn out to be wrong and we have to take another step soon. Maybe you turn out to be wrong and have to admit that tort reform and portability enable insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions without putting them into bankruptcy. Let's start, on every issue, with what we can agree on.
This is my biggest bone with people who think government is the answer. Head in the sand attitudes about how efficient government is.
And, seriously, I am right. Proof is in the pudding, and the government pudding is spoiled. Unfit for service.
Wouldn't it be more correct to say that the way the US government (well, its agencies really) currently operates isn't the most efficient? By holding on to your position you also close yourself off from the possibility that government CAN be effective, it just needs to get a serious overhaul.
By holding on to your position you also close yourself off from the possibility that government CAN be effective, it just needs to get a serious overhaul.
Derek is a proper Texan libertarian-leaning-anarchist. He believes in zero government, more or less.
Let me be blunt: The crux of your argument is irrelevant to me. <SNIP>
And therein lies the problem. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your bluntness, I just don't see how taking that position leads to anything but ideological war. :(
By holding on to your position you also close yourself off from the possibility that government CAN be effective, it just needs to get a serious overhaul.Derek is a proper Texan libertarian-leaning-anarchist. He believes in zero government, more or less.
The problem is, as has been mentioned before, zero government means no military, no oversight, no nothing. Yes, truly anarchy.
The problem is, as has been mentioned before, zero government means no military, no oversight, no nothing. Yes, truly anarchy.
Shhhh. He's probably OK with military, given the proportion of ex-Army in our gaming group. But not oversight.
There's a couple African nations that are almost there.
|
|
Wouldn't it be more correct to say that the way the US government (well, its agencies really) currently operates isn't the most efficient? By holding on to your position you also close yourself off from the possibility that government CAN be effective, it just needs to get a serious overhaul.This is my biggest bone with people who think government is the answer. Head in the sand attitudes about how efficient government is.
And, seriously, I am right. Proof is in the pudding, and the government pudding is spoiled. Unfit for service.
When someone can show me an efficient government, I'll believe it. and don't point to Europe, they are hitting a wall with their social programs. All those "smart" people who didn't have kids are wondering how a system is going to take care o0f them with no one to pay into it...
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
many things
I would say it's a different argument if I wanted to start or maintain a fight, but I don't. We set a standard at our inception for political, religious and economic freedom. We maintain that. If you want to seize on that phrase as a claim that other countries are not free, are not valuable or anything else you know full well I had no intention of saying, you are free to misinterpret me as you like.
I can say with a straight face that anyone in this country,subject to the rules laid out in the Constitution, can take a shot at being president. Could a wiccan convince American voters he understood the issues and propose policies that resonated with the people? Absolutely. Could that wiccan convince enough voters to win the presidency - probably not. But I wouldn't vote against that wiccan because he was a wiccan, I would vote against him because I disagreed with him on social or economic policy. If a wiccan Republican was an advocate of the Fairtax, advocated victory aborad and proposed policies intended to shrink government, strengthen the dollar and pay p the debt, he has a better chance than a token Christian who doesn't get the issues or than a liberal who pretends his Christianity between May and November.
And I will say here I don't restrict the hypotheiticla field to only those steroetypes. You don't need to tell me there are liberals who are sincere Christians, or conservatives who are as faux and dishonest as the next guy. We can probably all agree on that.
Finally, it's ridiculous to say America doesn't have religious freedom just because the social climate includes a large block of Christians. There is no requirement, no state religion, and no evidence of the faith claimed by most canddiates. In the specific example duly ignored by your response, John Kerry probably would have had the exact same electoral results regardless of whether he'd thrown himself back to his schoolboy Catholicism. He was rejected becau he was viewed as a politician who'd say what he needed to to get elected, and because his choice in VP is among the lowest scum of the earth, who got roundly ball-kicked in debate against the sitting VP.
Thanks for the veiled insult. Right or wrong, at least have the b$##s to come out and call someone stupid. Who do you think you're fooling?I believe my point was that the page is beneath you. Not to insult you. The assumption is YOU can have a productive conversation, but your SOURCE is not up to the challenge. Also, to respond that it's a veiled insult and not respond to the numerous classic errors in the page that you provided is, once again, a logical fallicy. If you realize now that you should have proffered a better resource, simply say so. There's no harm in that. Someone in this talk recently pointed out that folk sometimes don't admit being proven wrong out of pride. Let's neither you nor I be that guy.
That was me losing my temper, not me trying to prove a point. And I think you're being somewhat disingenuous in claiming you intended no insult.
The problem is, as has been mentioned before, zero government means no military, no oversight, no nothing. Yes, truly anarchy.By holding on to your position you also close yourself off from the possibility that government CAN be effective, it just needs to get a serious overhaul.Derek is a proper Texan libertarian-leaning-anarchist. He believes in zero government, more or less.
Most of the folks I know who espouse that line of thought would prefer a local militia to an official military, I think.
|
|
The problem is, as has been mentioned before, zero government means no military, no oversight, no nothing. Yes, truly anarchy.Shhhh. He's probably OK with military, given the proportion of ex-Army in our gaming group. But not oversight.
Two things the Federal government was tasked with in the Constitution: provide for general defense and regulate interstate commerce. Beyond that, the government is overstepping its bounds.
Two things the Federal government was tasked with in the Constitution: provide for general defense and regulate interstate commerce. Beyond that, the government is overstepping its bounds.
You keep mentioning 70 years. Presumably you're talking about the New Deal?
Incidentally, this post was to the point, factual, and (as far as I can see) anger-free. Thanks.
Though this post was specifically about the Federal Goverment, your other, general comments about government leave curious: Who, if not government, do you propose takes on the role of protecting the free market? In other words, who goes after the insider traders? Who prevents abuses of monopoly power? Or do you think such things should be accepted? Or do they legitimately fall under the regulation of interstate commerce? This is not a rhetorical question; I really want to know how you see these issues being handled.
What's upseting is we have forgotten how to compromise on solutions instead of on principle. Compromise should mean we can act on what we agree on and sort out the rest. Now it has become 'you must capitulate some, and I will reward you for it', as in the case of Ben Nelson.You're both right.
Agreed. This is an ugly scenario that turns a system where some of us win and some us lose into a winners feast losers starve. We get nowhere.
Consider health care. We could all probably agree that reducing the waste involed in defensive medicine and some tax reform would solve some problems. You might not agree that is the best place to start, but it should at least be a part of the conversation. It isn't. Tort reform has been completely ignored. Attempts to add tort reform to any version of the dozen health care bills offered this last year were killed in committee. The entire conversation about tax-free health savings accounts, reducing red tape for development of pharmaceuticals, non-COBRA portability, and more was cut short. ANd then that idiot Grayson shouted from the microphone that the Republican plan was for people to just die quickly.
Seven or eight options, never considered by one side, is hardly reason to suggest there aren't alternatives. And NONE of those alternative raise the deficit, increase taxes, or impose a governemnt employee between you and your doctor at any time.
I don't want to turn this into the hellstorm that the thread on this very topic turned into. I just want to point out that halos are being put on the crowns of one side and horns on the other through your argument. Less finger pointing means more productivity. It's a challenge for us all, myself included.
My point is, we should, as a nation, be more concerned wuith what we can agree on that our differences. You will never convince me that a public option is not a shady way to get us to single payer. I might not ever convince you that healthcare has been demagogued as a way to increase government dependence instead of solve an actual problem. But we can agree that not raising taxes if we dont' have to is a good thing, so let's find ways not to do that first. Maybe I turn out to be wrong and we have to take another step soon. Maybe you turn out to be wrong and have to admit that tort reform and portability enable insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions without putting them into bankruptcy. Let's start, on every issue, with what we can agree on.
In short, let's do it.
I've worked for two fortune 500 companies in my thirteen-year IT career. During that time, I've rarely seen hard work, cleverness, or merit rewarded, but instead I've consistently seen those willing to lie, take credit for the work of others, and generally throw co-workers under the bus rise up through the ranks. (And no, this isn't a bitter rant about my career. Others whom I find to be the most honest and hard-working generally go no place career-wise).
I'm started to think that perhaps this is why I am so skeptical of the idea of our economy as a meritocracy. I'm prepared to believe my experience isn't typical, so I'm asking:
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
I am going to add this. For someone to acuse anyone here of raging anti-intellectualism is corrosively offensive. There is a world of difference between not having respect for the kind of guy who reminds you he got an 'A' in his superficial logic class, and not having an open mind about actual intelligent argumentaion.
Please don't define any more terms for us. We know what straw man arguments are. We know what begging the question means. Anti-intellectual is pretty freaking self-explanatory. Your demeanor works against your credibility, making this conversation less and less fun.
I say the claim about government waste is not begging the question, not because I don't understand the concept, but because, as I said and you ignored, there's no requiremnt in this conversation to explore every detail offered. Were that true, I'd still be UN-BANGing that idiot site you referred us to. That thing is a thesis-in-waiting.
One claims there is waste, enough said. If you want to discuss which programs are wasteful, that is a specific conversation. It is not errant to make the statement "I am a conservative because I believe government is wasteful." If your assertion is 'government is not wasteful', and your opponent merely replies 'yes, it's wasteful', then both of you are beggin the question. Correctly, you should respond 'It is not wasteful because of thus', and he should counter specifically. A topic sentence is not a logical fallicy. At least not in casual conversation.
Also, as has been said once before, repetition of the titles of logical fallicies is a great indicator of an argument from self-importance. I don't know what you'd call that fallicy, but I propose we call it a 'Kerryism'.
<Kerry> But I do have three purple hearts. Or two. Maybe 4. Whatever. I was for it before I was against it. </Kerry>
many thingsI would say it's a different argument if I wanted to start or maintain a fight, but I don't. We set a standard at our inception for political, religious and economic freedom. We maintain that. If you want to seize on that phrase as a claim that other countries are not free, are not valuable or anything else you know full well I had no intention of saying, you are free to misinterpret me as you like.
I never said that other countries are not free, valuable or anything else, I simply asked how the US was freer, more valuable etc. than the rest of the world. That was your position or pray tell me how "our nation still sets the standard for political and religious freedom" (your words - which mirrors what David wrote in the OP) can otherwise be construed? Maybe you and I just have different definitions of "sets the standard" - to me it means "leading/at the forefront/something to be looked up to."
I can say with a straight face that anyone in this country,subject to the rules laid out in the Constitution, can take a shot at being president.
So can I, but that wasn't what I asked.
Could a wiccan convince American voters he understood the issues and propose policies that resonated with the people? Absolutely. Could that wiccan convince enough voters to win the presidency - probably not. But I wouldn't vote against that wiccan because he was a wiccan, I would vote against him because I disagreed with him on social or economic policy. If a wiccan Republican was an advocate of the Fairtax, advocated victory aborad and proposed policies intended to shrink government, strengthen the dollar and pay p the debt, he has a better chance than a token Christian who doesn't get the issues or than a liberal who pretends his Christianity between May and November.
Which just goes to prove that people would vote religion rather than issues, thus perpetuating the illusion that there is freedom of religion in politics, but in reality there isn't. Or rather, you have freedom of religion in politics, as long as you use that freedom to choose Christianity.
And I will say here I don't restrict the hypotheiticla field to only those steroetypes. You don't need to tell me there are liberals who are sincere Christians, or conservatives who are as faux and dishonest as the next guy. We can probably all agree on that.
That much we certainly can agree on.
I am going to add this. For someone to acuse anyone here of raging anti-intellectualism is corrosively offensive. There is a world of difference between not having respect for the kind of guy who reminds you he got an 'A' in his superficial logic class, and not having an open mind about actual intelligent argumentaion.
Unless you're suggesting Mr. Derek can see into the future, his lack of respect was expressed before I made a (tongue-in-cheek) mention of the grade I received in my logic class. You're right about one thing: I shouldn't have called anyone anti-intellectual.
I'm sorry, Mr. Derek.
Please don't define any more terms for us. We know what straw man arguments are. We know what begging the question means. Anti-intellectual is pretty freaking self-explanatory. Your demeanor works against your credibility, making this conversation less and less fun.
Because of some things that have been said, I wasn't sure everyone did, hence the links. The goal wasn't your enjoyment, but a clear understanding for all. Your choice to take it as offensive is exactly that.
Also, as has been said once before, repetition of the titles of logical fallicies is a great indicator of an argument from self-importance. I don't know what you'd call that fallicy, but I propose we call it a 'Kerryism'.
It's also a great indicator of someone who doesn't want to have to explain each fallacy as it is employed. Kinda like a shortcut? Here's an idea: Maybe if *you* took logic, you could save me the time?
|
|
<Kerry> But I do have three purple hearts. Or two. Maybe 4. Whatever. I was for it before I was against it. </Kerry>
For old times sake: 2004 election parody
And for new times sake: 2008 election parody
|
|
Two things the Federal government was tasked with in the Constitution: provide for general defense and regulate interstate commerce. Beyond that, the government is overstepping its bounds.You keep mentioning 70 years. Presumably you're talking about the New Deal?
Incidentally, this post was to the point, factual, and (as far as I can see) anger-free. Thanks.
Though this post was specifically about the Federal Goverment, your other, general comments about government leave curious: Who, if not government, do you propose takes on the role of protecting the free market? In other words, who goes after the insider traders? Who prevents abuses of monopoly power? Or do you think such things should be accepted? Or do they legitimately fall under the regulation of interstate commerce? This is not a rhetorical question; I really want to know how you see these issues being handled.
Regulate interstate commerce covers all of that. Unless a company does business wholly inside of a single state, the Feds can regulate how business is conducted. And if business is wholly conducted inside of one state, the state government can regulate that business.
<Kerry> But I do have three purple hearts. Or two. Maybe 4. Whatever. I was for it before I was against it. </Kerry>For old times sake: 2004 election parody
And for new times sake: 2008 election parody
JibJab is awesome. End of Line.
<Kerry> But I do have three purple hearts. Or two. Maybe 4. Whatever. I was for it before I was against it. </Kerry>For old times sake: 2004 election parody
And for new times sake: 2008 election parody
Man, I forgot about jibjab. I can't access here from work, but are they still doing stuff?
|
|
Man, I forgot about jibjab. I can't access here from work, but are they still doing stuff?<Kerry> But I do have three purple hearts. Or two. Maybe 4. Whatever. I was for it before I was against it. </Kerry>For old times sake: 2004 election parody
And for new times sake: 2008 election parody
Yup. Just saw their review of 2009. To the tune of the Entertainer. Still good stuff. I only check them out at the end of the year these days.
Regulate interstate commerce covers all of that. Unless a company does business wholly inside of a single state, the Feds can regulate how business is conducted. And if business is wholly conducted inside of one state, the state government can regulate that business.Two things the Federal government was tasked with in the Constitution: provide for general defense and regulate interstate commerce. Beyond that, the government is overstepping its bounds.You keep mentioning 70 years. Presumably you're talking about the New Deal?
Incidentally, this post was to the point, factual, and (as far as I can see) anger-free. Thanks.
Though this post was specifically about the Federal Goverment, your other, general comments about government leave curious: Who, if not government, do you propose takes on the role of protecting the free market? In other words, who goes after the insider traders? Who prevents abuses of monopoly power? Or do you think such things should be accepted? Or do they legitimately fall under the regulation of interstate commerce? This is not a rhetorical question; I really want to know how you see these issues being handled.
Cool, but what about monopolies, specifically? Maybe I'm getting my history muddled, but I'm thinking of a railroad situation starting up again. Also, what of companies/situations like Enron? Or Pinkerton?
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
I had a longer post with some anecdotes about my own work experiences, but I will condense to this:
We should be a meritocaracy. We are not currently. Lying and demagoguery (I acknowledge is not the exclusive province of one partry or another) allow people to misrepresent themselves. If they get elected, or get the promotion, they then also have a pulpit to defend their failures and slough blame elsewhere.
But it didn't used to be that way. I think the point of conservatism is to get us back to that place. Hard to campaign on 'social security was a bad idea', even if it was. My argument suffers when someone gasps 'Steve wants to take your Social Security away', even if that is not something I have ever said.
You are right in that some success comes these days at the expense of another. Two thoughts there are 1) that we can get back to a place where that is less true, if we can just weed some of this waste out and pursue solutions that give people their money and opportunity back instead of growing government troughs, and 2) you can't let that stop you. Short term, the bad guys might tell lies or advance at your expense. But a person of principlewill win out. Maybe you have to acheive your desired position at a different company. Maybe you have to move or go out on your own. There should never have been this concept that the world is fair and the government exists to ensure fairness. That is impossible. What's undeniable is that hard work and determination made us a powerful economy and a free people, and we are selling ourselves short and betraying that legacy. When the world has finally had enough of a corrupt and imploding dollar, we will finally begin to reap actual consequences instead of pushing it off onto another generation.
Yup. Just saw their review of 2009. To the tune of the Entertainer. Still good stuff. I only check them out at the end of the year these days.
Good! When I get home after driving through the rush hour snowtocalypse traffic, I'll have to revisit the site.
I never said that other countries are not free, valuable or anything else, I simply asked how the US was freer, more valuable etc. than the rest of the world.
As far as how valuable the U.S. is, who do you think keeps the world peace? The U.N.? We're the only thing that keeps the predators at bay. If America disappeared, how long do you think Europe could stand on it's own?
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
some stuff
Again, I cannot stop you from misinterpreting me. But I will reluctantly add the aveat that we are not alone at the front of freedom. I don't pretend we are more libertine than all other nations. I do think we have leading economic freedom, though I supopse that won't last more than a few years at our present rate.
Again, other places are free. Sticking on my rhetorical use of the phrase 'set the standard' is not productive for either of us.
I just provide an example where people probably would not have voted any differently regardles of the religious or nonreligious claims of John Kerry. I also explained that a secular country with a large Christian minority could well elect a gay wiccan president if his proposals would resonate with us. I pointed out I would rather vote for a nonChristian president who has the right social and economic ideas than a Christian candidate who shared my faith but nothing else. I could not be more clear on the matter.
I had a longer post with some anecdotes about my own work experiences, but I will condense to this:We should be a meritocaracy. We are not currently. Lying and demagoguery (I acknowledge is not the exclusive province of one partry or another) allow people to misrepresent themselves. If they get elected, or get the promotion, they then also have a pulpit to defend their failures and slough blame elsewhere.
But it didn't used to be that way. I think the point of conservatism is to get us back to that place. Hard to campaign on 'social security was a bad idea', even if it was. My argument suffers when someone gasps 'Steve wants to take your Social Security away', even if that is not something I have ever said.
You are right in that some success comes these days at the expense of another. Two thoughts there are 1) that we can get back to a place where that is less true, if we can just weed some of this waste out and pursue solutions that give people their money and opportunity back instead of growing government troughs, and 2) you can't let that stop you. Short term, the bad guys might tell lies or advance at your expense. But a person of principlewill win out. Maybe you have to acheive your desired position at a different company. Maybe you have to move or go out on your own. There should never have been this concept that the world is fair and the government exists to ensure fairness. That is impossible. What's undeniable is that hard work and determination made us a powerful economy and a free people, and we are selling ourselves short and betraying that legacy. When the world has finally had enough of a corrupt and imploding dollar, we will finally begin to reap actual consequences instead of pushing it off onto another generation.
I agree that we're pushing our trouble off on to future generations, and that the debt will lead to the implosion of the dollar, which will basically destroy our economy. No argument there.
I also don't want a bigger government, I want a smaller one. And I understand that government agencies take on a life of their own.
However, I fundamentally identify myself as a liberal because as much as I'd like to believe that this country used to a meritocracy, and could be again, I'm not convinced. Whenever I look at the data, I come to the conclusion that we're collectively living longer, juster, freer lives than at any previous time in history. People are no longer prevented from voting based on sex or race (the opposite of meritocracy) as they once were. Life spans are up. Leisure time is *way* up. Further, I am constantly reminded of the human tendency to view the past through rose-colored glasses. Add to that what I see going on around me, and I am led to conclude that the past you mention never existed. Instead, when I look at the past, I see a pretty clear pattern of the few oppressing the many, and I view huge disparities in wealth in our current society as the modern incarnation of that oppression.
I took the time to write this not to try to convince anyone, which would (obviously) be futile, but so that maybe those who are interested can gain some insight into why I think the way I do.
I've worked for two fortune 500 companies in my thirteen-year IT career. During that time, I've rarely seen hard work, cleverness, or merit rewarded, but instead I've consistently seen those willing to lie, take credit for the work of others, and generally throw co-workers under the bus rise up through the ranks. (And no, this isn't a bitter rant about my career. Others whom I find to be the most honest and hard-working generally go no place career-wise).
I'm started to think that perhaps this is why I am so skeptical of the idea of our economy as a meritocracy. I'm prepared to believe my experience isn't typical, so I'm asking:
In my 20+ year career with two global engineering firms, I'll say that most absolutely I've seen meritocracy in action.
But you post vastly oversimplifies the idea. Hard work and merit *alone* does not cut it. When all is said and done it is about making your customer happy. And you have a lot of customers. The obvious customers are the people who make payments for the product you produce. But your boss is a customer who buys your time for producing something he can sell. And the manager who puts you on a task is a customer. And even the guy who sits next to you can be a customer who is happy if your actions make his day better or unhappy if your actions make his day worse. Politics and personal relations is part of reality and part of "merit".
Now, if you are truly claiming that you have consistently seen people with an absence of "merit" rise through the ranks, then I call BS on that. I expect that the real version is that one person WITH merit advanced at the expense of someone else who also had merit, possible even more merit, by "tossing that person under the bus". That certainly happens. But I guarantee you that the "jerk" still made his customers happy. AND I will wager that, given time, a pattern of throwing people under the bus comes back to take you right back down.
If someone does use dirty pool to rise above their merit, the lack of merit starts to show fast. I've see THAT quite a few times.
There are bosses in my company that a lot of people can't stand because they are seen as jerks. But, they are also respected. Merit and being a jerk are not incompatible. Certainly be a decent person contributes to merit overall. But it is far from being the deciding factor. There also have been (and certainly are at this moment) bosses in my company that seen as jerks and laughed at behind their backs. The ones I know of mostly fall under the "have been" label.
merit+jerk = success
merit+cool = success
lack of merit +jerk = lack of lasting success
lack of merit + cool = lack of lasting success
The jerk/cool part of the equation has no impact on the outcome.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
It's also a great indicator of someone who doesn't want to have to explain each fallacy as it is employed. Kinda like a shortcut? Here's an idea: Maybe if *you* took logic, you could save me the time?
I would counter that first, while critical thinking is essential, a rudimentary course in pointing out logical fallicies has likely never changed one heart or mind about any issue ever. Radicalizing your opposition with pretentiousness is not a sound strategy in debate.
Second, I engaged you on the number of poor evidences of the post you left us with. If you are willing to allow poor reasoning to evidence your positions, while you assail someone else for the logical fallicies you must continue to name, the argument that you are stuck on yourself gains more weight.
Third, I have taken instruction on critical thinking and logic, and I won't bore you with my high school and college debat experience. I know poor logic when I see it, evidenced by my (and others) response to your post. My request is that you stop insulting peoples' intelligence and that you pursue conversation instead of argument.
For a simmered down, fresh start at friendly conversation, I refer you to my response about our non-meritocracy.
<SNIP> I pointed out I would rather vote for a nonChristian president who has the right social and economic ideas than a Christian candidate who shared my faith but nothing else. I could not be more clear on the matter.
You're right. But that hardly means enough people would follow your example to make the candidate in question electable. Personally, I don't believe that they would, but that's more of a condemnation of the electorate than it is of a democratic republic.
<SNIP> Radicalizing your opposition with pretentiousness is not a sound strategy in debate.<SNIP>
Again, you're right. Which leads me to:
<SNIP>My request is that you stop insulting peoples' intelligence and that you pursue conversation instead of argument.<SNIP>
That's a two-way street, and one that I'd be more inclined to drive if your offer didn't include such a huge helping of self-righteousness.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
I think a lot of merit-based decision-making can be sen as being a jerk, because if the recent experiences of others. I once fired a guy for smoking pot on the job. He was previously tolerated by a moron who thought by lowering his standards he could keep his work force. So I inherited a workforce of lazy people who didn't come to work and sucked at their jobs. I didn't go slamming them for sucking, but I told them up front they'd make more moeny and enjoy their jobs more f they met a higher standard. Then I immedately fired the pot smoker and one thief to demonstrate I was serious.
Now, I didnt; fre everyone, that'd be impossible. But I fired theworst of them right away and got myself a pretty fair team after six months of 90-hour weeks. Our success the next year was based on my merit, and base don the merit of those who responded. Those who didn't got fired. I was for a while viewed as a jerk. When your standards are low, no one has to pay the price. When your standards are raised and you aren't afraid to pull the trigger (on a consstent format), everything slowly got better. Was it perfect? No. When sales had doubles and we couldn't hire anyone else in a 3% unemplyoment market, I still had neysayers. They reaped the rewards: double sales, higher tips, more hours and a cleaner environment (not to mention I wasn't stelaing from them all) should have made it pretty hard to deny the benefits of doing it my way. but, a few never changed their standards. They enjoyed the benefits and always whined that I pushed too hard.
In our society, people who feel like its too hard have to be pushed to survive. We should make an alowance for those who simply can't. But letting someone live on the government dime because of a 20% hearing loss in one ear is pretty stupid. We tell people, you can only fall so far, and they immediately satisfy themselves with that level of living. As more do, the burden grows.
When you tell people 'white man got you down', or 'tax cuts for the rich' or 'vote for me to get what you deserve', you stop being a meritcracy and start being a daycare. After decades of expanding that role, you create a climate where some peope work too hard for not enough, because too much is taken to pay for those who don't work at all. Others works hard, but then cheat the system. Sometimes they resent the unsuccessful, sometimes they are (at least telling themselves) storing up success so their family doesn't have so much to worry about when the government screws everything up.
And, it is worth saying, sometimes not helpgin someone is the best thing you can do for them. That guy sitting on the highway corner in clean clothes for ix hours a daymight take home fifty bucks. If he did it for two days in the heat with nothing to show for it, he might get a job. That's his decision. But if he can stand for four hours when it's 90 (or 40) degress, he can put that and one other ability to use for money and live a better life that doesn't drain the system.
And then maybe, if we stop taking so much form the people who work for it, we can get to a meritocracy that can afford a litle safety net for those who simply can't fend for themselves. When I vote or debate, that's my goal.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
<SNIP> Radicalizing your opposition with pretentiousness is not a sound strategy in debate.<SNIP>Again, you're right. Which leads me to:
<SNIP>My request is that you stop insulting peoples' intelligence and that you pursue conversation instead of argument.<SNIP>That's a two-way street, and one that I'd be more inclined to drive if your offer didn't include such a huge helping of self-righteousness.
I can let it go if you can. My point is simply that we all know what you're defining for us, and you've got no reason to suspect otherwise.
On with meritocracy?
Stuff
Thank you for explaining your position without referring the the perceived moral shortcomings of people who view things differently than you do.
I am intrigued by what you've said. My main sticking points are:
First, fiscal conservatism seems inexorably bound to social conservatism, at least in the modern United States. Do you agree? If so, Is that acceptable to you? How do you propose it be addressed?
Second, what do you find acceptable in terms of unemployment? You discussed people unable to work, and those unwilling to work, but what about those who are both willing and able but can't find a job? I certainly don't believe that everyone unemployed at a given time "deserves" it.
And the biggest one: The correlation between merit and reward. This is my biggest problem, because merit often seems to boil down to "whomever can get the most money, any way they can."
|
|
StuffThank you for explaining your position without referring the the perceived moral shortcomings of people who view things differently than you do.
I am intrigued by what you've said. My main sticking points are:
First, fiscal conservatism seems inexorably bound to social conservatism, at least in the modern United States. Is that acceptable to you? If not, how do you propose it be addressed?
Second, what do you find acceptable in terms of unemployment? You discussed people unable to work, and those unwilling to work, but what about those who are both willing and able but can't find a job? I certainly don't believe that everyone unemployed at a given time "deserves" it.
And the biggest one: The correlation between merit and reward. This is my biggest problem, because merit often seems to boil down to "whomever can get the most money, any way they can."
Welcome to Capitalism.
Welcome to Capitalism.StuffThank you for explaining your position without referring the the perceived moral shortcomings of people who view things differently than you do.
I am intrigued by what you've said. My main sticking points are:
First, fiscal conservatism seems inexorably bound to social conservatism, at least in the modern United States. Is that acceptable to you? If not, how do you propose it be addressed?
Second, what do you find acceptable in terms of unemployment? You discussed people unable to work, and those unwilling to work, but what about those who are both willing and able but can't find a job? I certainly don't believe that everyone unemployed at a given time "deserves" it.
And the biggest one: The correlation between merit and reward. This is my biggest problem, because merit often seems to boil down to "whomever can get the most money, any way they can."
I'm sorry you edited your post- I was going to put that it tastes great and is less filling to boot. Oh well.
|
|
I'm sorry you edited your post- I was going to put that it tastes great and is less filling to boot. Oh well.Welcome to Capitalism.StuffThank you for explaining your position without referring the the perceived moral shortcomings of people who view things differently than you do.
I am intrigued by what you've said. My main sticking points are:
First, fiscal conservatism seems inexorably bound to social conservatism, at least in the modern United States. Is that acceptable to you? If not, how do you propose it be addressed?
Second, what do you find acceptable in terms of unemployment? You discussed people unable to work, and those unwilling to work, but what about those who are both willing and able but can't find a job? I certainly don't believe that everyone unemployed at a given time "deserves" it.
And the biggest one: The correlation between merit and reward. This is my biggest problem, because merit often seems to boil down to "whomever can get the most money, any way they can."
I figured the pre-edited post would spark too many flames. This thread is hot enough as it is.
I figured the pre-edited post would spark too many flames. This thread is hot enough as it is.I'm sorry you edited your post- I was going to put that it tastes great and is less filling to boot. Oh well.Welcome to Capitalism.StuffThank you for explaining your position without referring the the perceived moral shortcomings of people who view things differently than you do.
I am intrigued by what you've said. My main sticking points are:
First, fiscal conservatism seems inexorably bound to social conservatism, at least in the modern United States. Is that acceptable to you? If not, how do you propose it be addressed?
Second, what do you find acceptable in terms of unemployment? You discussed people unable to work, and those unwilling to work, but what about those who are both willing and able but can't find a job? I certainly don't believe that everyone unemployed at a given time "deserves" it.
And the biggest one: The correlation between merit and reward. This is my biggest problem, because merit often seems to boil down to "whomever can get the most money, any way they can."
I understand where you are coming from, but with the risk of heating things up, I say flame on. I'm interested in what Conservatives- both social and economic- have to say on that issue. ESPECIALLY considering the aside with regards to slavery above.
{EDIT} Still waiting on a response to what I posted earlier, Derek.
|
|
StuffThank you for explaining your position without referring the the perceived moral shortcomings of people who view things differently than you do.
I am intrigued by what you've said. My main sticking points are:
First, fiscal conservatism seems inexorably bound to social conservatism, at least in the modern United States. Do you agree? If so, Is that acceptable to you? How do you propose it be addressed?
Second, what do you find acceptable in terms of unemployment? You discussed people unable to work, and those unwilling to work, but what about those who are both willing and able but can't find a job? I certainly don't believe that everyone unemployed at a given time "deserves" it.
And the biggest one: The correlation between merit and reward. This is my biggest problem, because merit often seems to boil down to "whomever can get the most money, any way they can."
First: Only in the minds of the media. They're the ones who paint all conservatives with the same brush. Have fun with that.
Second: Well, let's see. When the government does wonderful things like raise the minimum wage (which hurts the largest private sector job provider - small business) with no visible benefit (costs increase every time, eliminating any perceived "gain"), force oil and gas companies to use food as fuel (ethanol), which uses a process that 1) uses enough energy to make the whole process a net loss, lowers fuel efficiency, and wears out several engine components much faster than pure gasoline would, thereby increasing the cost of doing business, and, therefore, prices, refuse to seriously address tort reform and frivoulous lawsuits (thereby increasing the cost of doing business), pass "stimulous packages" that apparently only create jobs in congressional districts that don't exist (thereby creating the need to raise taxes, which, in turn, increases costs)(and, on a side note, why is our unemployment two and a half points over what they said it would be if we didn't pass the stimulous package???), but people keep electing idiots who do these wonderful things, then, well, they can reap what they sow.
Maybe, if people really want to have jobs, they'd stop electing people who think the people who create jobs are evil and need to be punished for being successful.
As far as "merit" goes, whatever. Life isn't fair. If your workplace rewards ass kissing over hard work, learn to pucker. If I strike it rich somehow and leave that money to my kids, I'm not taking away from your kids. Maybe if you had concerned yourself with what you needed to do to succeed, and stopped worrying about how "unfair" it is that someone else either worked harder or played the game better, you'd be successful as well.
The "you" above is the general, not personal, "you".
Second, what do you find acceptable in terms of unemployment? You discussed people unable to work, and those unwilling to work, but what about those who are both willing and able but can't find a job? I certainly don't believe that everyone unemployed at a given time "deserves" it.
Unable to get a job period, or unable to get a job that covers their living costs? If you have bills based on a $5,000/month job, you probably can't survive on a $800/month job. Unforunately the system is set up people not to get crappy jobs while still looking for a good job in those cases, because it is not financially feasible. It would be nice if we could come up with a system where people could get a crappy job and still get some of the benefits of unemployment thus making the choice feasible.
At the very least, we should look at people that could work, but that are on the government money as being force to "volunteer" to do odd jobs. Pick up trash on the high way. Shovel sidewalks. Whatever. If you are getting government money, you should be providing a service to the public.
First: Only in the minds of the media. They're the ones who paint all conservatives with the same brush. Have fun with that.
Remind me...which party do you feel represents your values? ;-)
Edit: Seriously though, most of this seems like an argument for libertarianism, not conservatism.