Where do you stack up?
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/TOOLS/POLMTX/thetest.php
My score beneath:
Economic score: +3.1
Social score: -4.52
Your score pegs you as economically moderately capitalist and socially moderately libertarian.
Moderate capitalists usually support free trade and low taxes, but take pragmatic stances according to what they believe will be best for business and workers.
Moderate social libertarians generally favor a hands-off approach to social legislation. They may believe that the government has no right to enforce morals, but may support certain controls on individual rights to avoid crime, drug use, or similar social ills.
- Economic score: -3.35
Social score: -5.91
Your score pegs you as economically moderately leftist andsocially libertarian.
Moderate economic leftists generally support regulation offree trade and business to assure that workers are fairly treated and pricesremain stable.
Social libertarians generally believe that the governmentshould not judge morality, and are generally against the illegalization ofthings that do not directly affect other people in a negative way. Many strongsocial libertarians may also be social progressives, favoring legislation tocorrect what they see as socially backwards governmental regulation, althoughsome simply wish for the government to make little judgment on social matters.
Economic score: -8.65
Social score: -6.09
Your score pegs you as economically socialist and socially libertarian.
Socialists typically support heavily regulated industry and programs to aid the poor and impoverished. They often also support significant raises in taxes and minimum wage to attempt to decrease the gap between the wealthy and poor, and to ensure social equality.
Social libertarians generally believe that the government should not judge morality, and are generally against the illegalization of things that do not directly affect other people in a negative way. Many strong social libertarians may also be social progressives, favoring legislation to correct what they see as socially backwards governmental regulation, although some simply wish for the government to make little judgment on social matters.
Economic score: -1.03
Social score: -1.57
Your score pegs you as economically center-leftist and socially center-libertarian.
Economic center-leftists typically support above average controls on free trade, raising or maintaining the current tax levels, but still support free trade.
Social center-libertarians generally have moderate social views, with a slight lean toward avoiding government intervention. However, they support government intervention in matters that they see as threats to society.
Generally, I would be considered a leftist economically and a social libertarian, however I found the test questions to lack nuance and some of the options not-so-clear cut. Therefore I don't think my scores would reflect my position very accurately.
Economic score: -7.23
Social score: -8.7
Your score pegs you as economically socialist and socially far-leftist.
Socialists typically support heavily regulated industry and programs to aid the poor and impoverished. They often also support significant raises in taxes and minimum wage to attempt to decrease the gap between the wealthy and poor, and to ensure social equality.
Social far-leftists generally believe that the government has no business enforcing morality on most matters, instead favoring a government that intervenes only when absolutely necessary to avoid direct harm. Many social far-leftists also look negatively on the government's past attitudes toward groups they view as persecuted, although some simply oppose government intervention on utilitarianist grounds.
I am not taking this test that summarizes my views and opinions into two numbers. Human mind is much more complex than that. The brain is a multidimensional network, wrapping it up on a 2-dimensional plate oversimplifies too much.
I want to be evaluated from what I say.
Economic score: -4.52
Social score: -4.00
Your score pegs you as economically moderately leftist and socially moderately libertarian.
Moderate economic leftists generally support regulation of free trade and business to assure that workers are fairly treated and prices remain stable.
Moderate social libertarians generally favor a hands-off approach to social legislation. They may believe that the government has no right to enforce morals, but may support certain controls on individual rights to avoid crime, drug use, or similar social ills.
Quote from: 71 dB on July 21, 2010, 03:40:47 AM
I want to be evaluated from what I say.
Have no fear. At this board you are - all the time.
Economic score: +0.13
Social score: -2.96
Your score pegs you as economically centrist and socially center-libertarian.
Economic centrists generally support economic policy that they see as fit for specific situations, although they may have different views relating to taxes and regulation.
Social center-libertarians generally have moderate social views, with a slight lean toward avoiding government intervention. However, they support government intervention in matters that they see as threats to society.
It's a fair cop $:)
8)
Quote from: 71 dB on July 21, 2010, 03:40:47 AM
I want to be evaluated from what I say.
Believe me, you have been! >:D
8)
Economic score: -3.87
Social score: -4.17
Your score pegs you as economically moderately leftist and socially moderately libertarian.
I think I'm more centrist on economics than the score indicates.
Economic score: -2.06
Social score: -4.00
Your score pegs you as economically center-leftist and socially moderately libertarian.
Economic center-leftists typically support above average controls on free trade, raising or maintaining the current tax levels, but still support free trade.
Moderate social libertarians generally favor a hands-off approach to social legislation. They may believe that the government has no right to enforce morals, but may support certain controls on individual rights to avoid crime, drug use, or similar social ills.
Ha! I'm clearly a raging socialist, intent on the downfall of Western Civilisation!
Quote from: edward on July 21, 2010, 05:20:14 AM
Ha! I'm clearly a raging socialist, intent on the downfall of Western Civilisation!
We don't need the test to see that, your avatar suffices!
Economic score: +0.45
Social score: +3.04
Your score pegs you as economically centrist and socially moderately authoritarian.
Economic centrists generally support economic policy that they see as fit for specific situations, although they may have different views relating to taxes and regulation.
Moderate social authoritarians typically support social controls meant to encourage moral behavior and an organized society, although they may have some moderate or libertarian positions.
I'm moderately authoritarian, because i'm against foreign aids, immigration, gay marriage and abortion, and because i want to restrict the amount of filth our children are exposed to in the media. At the same time, i'm "moderate" because i strongly disagree that our civil rights should not be violated to stop terrorism. Somehow i get the feeling this test is a bit biased.
Economic score: -0.26
Social score: -5.04
Your score pegs you as economically centrist and socially libertarian.
Economic centrists generally support economic policy that they see as fit for specific situations, although they may have different views relating to taxes and regulation.
Social libertarians generally believe that the government should not judge morality, and are generally against the illegalization of things that do not directly affect other people in a negative way. Many strong social libertarians may also be social progressives, favoring legislation to correct what they see as socially backwards governmental regulation, although some simply wish for the government to make little judgment on social matters.
Economic score: +4.9
Social score: -0.7
Your score pegs you as economically moderately capitalist and socially centrist.
Moderate capitalists usually support free trade and low taxes, but take pragmatic stances according to what they believe will be best for business and workers.
Social centrists generally believe in a mix of individual liberties and controls, corresponding to what they see as moral or best for society.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 21, 2010, 05:24:27 AM
I'm moderately authoritarian, because i'm against foreign aids, immigration, gay marriage and abortion
Why are you against gay marriage and abortion?
Quote from: 71 dB on July 21, 2010, 06:07:55 AM
Why are you against gay marriage and abortion?
because he is a terrible human being.
I haven't changed since we last took this survey. Still a dark shade of pink ;D
Economic score: -2.19
Social score: -5.74
Your score pegs you as economically center-leftist and socially libertarian.
Economic center-leftists typically support above average controls on free trade, raising or maintaining the current tax levels, but still support free trade.
Social libertarians generally believe that the government should not judge morality, and are generally against the illegalization of things that do not directly affect other people in a negative way. Many strong social libertarians may also be social progressives, favoring legislation to correct what they see as socially backwards governmental regulation, although some simply wish for the government to make little judgment on social matters.
Sarge
Someone in an earlier thread (it may have been the so-called "Progressive" thread) was complaining that people on this forum are so conservative, but the scores here disagree. You bunch of pinkos.
My results:
Economic score: +2.97
Social score: -5.57
Your score pegs you as economically center-capitalist and socially libertarian.
Center-capitalists often support free trade and low taxes, but take pragmatic stances on economic issues, supporting what they see as the best balance between encouraging business and maintaining free trade.
Social libertarians generally believe that the government should not judge morality, and are generally against the illegalization of things that do not directly affect other people in a negative way. Many strong social libertarians may also be social progressives, favoring legislation to correct what they see as socially backwards governmental regulation, although some simply wish for the government to make little judgment on social matters.
The questions for this test have morphed over time, and some are rather weak and don't really address the topics they bring up very well. I'm also puzzled by the line "the best balance between encouraging business and maintaining free trade." Um, business is responsible for trade. Anyway, I'm satisifed with my score I suppose, understanding that it is just a lark.
Quote from: 71 dB on July 21, 2010, 06:07:55 AM
Why are you against gay marriage and abortion?
Gay marriage because it seeks to interfere with the institution of family. Family was one of the corner stones of Roman civilization, and has been pivotal in the development of European civilization as well. Liberals seek to redefine marriage as a purely individualistic custom, completely separated from any sense of duty regarding family and society in general. Homosexuals cannot have children, adoption is a limited option, and raising children in such an environment may not be ideal in the first place. It just seems irresponsible to me to mess with an institution that has served civilization for centuries just to satisfy some superficial personal need of what is after all but a tiny minority.
Abortion because it promotes promiscuity and irresponsibility. Liberals always like to blabber about freedom of choice and such nonsense, when we all know the real issue is one of convenience. This is what abortion is all about, to be able to engage in sex casually without any worry about the consequences and responsibilities attached to a pregnancy. We live in a pornographic society where sex is considered the highest and ultimate goal one can attain in life, and unwanted pregnancies are just one of the many obstacles towards complete sexual freedom. It also fosters a moral relativistic point of view towards the extinguishing of life after inception, which is where religious people tend to go ballistic. The liberal idea of free abortion is not one in which society is willing to accept a necessary evil, but one in which abortion has no moral connotation at all. Killing a fetus has as much moral weight to a liberal as amputating an appendix.
Quote from: Todd on July 21, 2010, 06:53:19 AM
The questions for this test have morphed over time, and some are rather weak and don't really address the topics they bring up very well. I'm also puzzled by the line "the best balance between encouraging business and maintaining free trade." Um, business is responsible for trade. Anyway, I'm satisifed with my score I suppose, understanding that it is just a lark.
I think they are parsing the differences in the ideas of "free trade" and "fair trade" - the latter would include some restrictions on foreign competition to benefit domestic industry.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 21, 2010, 06:55:19 AMAbortion because it promotes promiscuity and irresponsibility.
I don't know if abortion promotes promiscuity, though abortion itself is the height of irresponsibility. There is nothing more irresponsible than destroying a potential human life because it poses an inconvenience.
That written, I support legal, but not publicly funded, abortion, because ultimately, if people want to make horribly bad, irresponsible decisions that they will regret for the rest of their lives, they should generally be free to do so. Other shouldn't have to fund it, though.
Quote from: Franco on July 21, 2010, 07:01:23 AM
I think they are parsing the differences in the ideas of "free trade" and "fair trade" - the latter would include some restrictions on foreign competition to benefit domestic industry.
Possibly, though it's poorly worded and, if true, premised on faulty logic. So-called "fair trade" is one of the dumbest political ideas in existence.
No surprises here . . .
Economic score: -3.74
Social score: -5.22
Your score pegs you as economically moderately leftist and socially libertarian.
Moderate economic leftists generally support regulation of free trade and business to assure that workers are fairly treated and prices remain stable.
Social libertarians generally believe that the government should not judge morality, and are generally against the illegalization of things that do not directly affect other people in a negative way. Many strong social libertarians may also be social progressives, favoring legislation to correct what they see as socially backwards governmental regulation, although some simply wish for the government to make little judgment on social matters.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 21, 2010, 06:55:19 AM
Gay marriage because it seeks to interfere with the institution of family. Family was one of the corner stones of Roman civilization, and has been pivotal in the development of European civilization as well. Liberals seek to redefine marriage as a purely individualistic custom, completely separated from any sense of duty regarding family and society in general. Homosexuals cannot have children, adoption is a limited option, and raising children in such an environment may not be ideal in the first place. It just seems irresponsible to me to mess with an institution that has served civilization for centuries just to satisfy some superficial personal need of what is after all but a tiny minority.
Abortion because it promotes promiscuity and irresponsibility. Liberals always like to blabber about freedom of choice and such nonsense, when we all know the real issue is one of convenience. This is what abortion is all about, to be able to engage in sex casually without any worry about the consequences and responsibilities attached to a pregnancy. We live in a pornographic society where sex is considered the highest and ultimate goal one can attain in life, and unwanted pregnancies are just one of the many obstacles towards complete sexual freedom. It also fosters a moral relativistic point of view towards the extinguishing of life after inception, which is where religious people tend to go ballistic. The liberal idea of free abortion is not one in which society is willing to accept a necessary evil, but one in which abortion has no moral connotation at all. Killing a fetus has as much moral weight to a liberal as amputating an appendix.
The political philosophy I find most appealing is conservatism that prioritizes
1. liberty for the individual over power of the state,
2. little government intrusion into personal lives, and
3. robust capitalistic economic policies.
Considering the 2nd item, I do not support government intrusion into an individual's private life, preferring a society where people are free to make lifestyle decisions based on how their conscience guides them, even if their choices would not be mine (but if asked, I might counsel them to consider a different choice).
It should go without saying that I would oppose any attempt of the state to tax me in order to pay for someone else's choice, e.g to have an abortion. If they want one, fine, just don't ask me to pay for it.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 21, 2010, 06:55:19 AM
Gay marriage because it seeks to interfere with the institution of family. Family was one of the corner stones of Roman civilization, and has been pivotal in the development of European civilization as well. Liberals seek to redefine marriage as a purely individualistic custom, completely separated from any sense of duty regarding family and society in general.
I've got a good friend who's gay and who's spent a huge amount of time over the last two years helping to take care of his husband's elderly father who was recovering from a serious stroke. I'm not sure how letting him get married to the man he loves harmed the institution of family.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 21, 2010, 06:55:19 AMHomosexuals cannot have children
My wife and I can't have kids. Do you think we should we have been banned from marrying?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 21, 2010, 06:55:19 AMsuperficial personal need
Just out of curiosity, have you ever been in love?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 21, 2010, 06:55:19 AM
Gay marriage because it seeks to interfere with the institution of family. Family was one of the corner stones of Roman civilization, and has been pivotal in the development of European civilization as well. Liberals seek to redefine marriage as a purely individualistic custom, completely separated from any sense of duty regarding family and society in general. Homosexuals cannot have children, adoption is a limited option, and raising children in such an environment may not be ideal in the first place. It just seems irresponsible to me to mess with an institution that has served civilization for centuries just to satisfy some superficial personal need of what is after all but a tiny minority.
I don't think gay marriages would interfere anything. Heterosexual marriages would be the same as they have been. We have to allow gay people to have the same rights, if possible, because they exist, can't do anything about their sexuality and because equality is a new cornerstone of civilization.
Homosexuals can't have children but so can't many heterosexuals either. Many heterosexuals don't even want children. The only thing needed for a marriage is two individuals loving each other.
Studies show that children raised in gay families aren't suffering from the situation.
You gave valid-sounding arguments but they can be debunked easily.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 21, 2010, 06:55:19 AMAbortion because it promotes promiscuity and irresponsibility. Liberals always like to blabber about freedom of choice and such nonsense, when we all know the real issue is one of convenience. This is what abortion is all about, to be able to engage in sex casually without any worry about the consequences and responsibilities attached to a pregnancy. We live in a pornographic society where sex is considered the highest and ultimate goal one can attain in life, and unwanted pregnancies are just one of the many obstacles towards complete sexual freedom. It also fosters a moral relativistic point of view towards the extinguishing of life after inception, which is where religious people tend to go ballistic. The liberal idea of free abortion is not one in which society is willing to accept a necessary evil, but one in which abortion has no moral connotation at all. Killing a fetus has as much moral weight to a liberal as amputating an appendix.
It's about how much freedom you want to give to people. You have freedom in many ways (for example to express your thoughts here) and that freedom fades away when people stars to care too much about irresponsibility and get too moral about things.
Quote from: 71 dB on July 21, 2010, 07:33:42 AM
It's about how much freedom you want to give to people. You have freedom in many ways (for example to express your thoughts here) and that freedom fades away when people stars to care too much about irresponsibility and get too moral about things.
Just f******* kill me now and get it over with... :P
8)
Quote from: Todd on July 21, 2010, 07:05:11 AM
I don't know if abortion promotes promiscuity, though abortion itself is the height of irresponsibility. There is nothing more irresponsible than destroying a potential human life because it poses an inconvenience.
Where do you draw the line of a potential human life? Is it wrong to not have sex? Is it wrong to use a condom? In what point can we start to talk about a potential human life? My solution to this philosophical problem is to draw the line half-way into the pregnancy.
These were my results.
Economic score: -4.9
Social score: -2.26
Your score pegs you as economically moderately leftist and socially center-libertarian.
Moderate economic leftists generally support regulation of free trade and business to assure that workers are fairly treated and prices remain stable.
Social center-libertarians generally have moderate social views, with a slight lean toward avoiding government intervention. However, they support government intervention in matters that they see as threats to society.
Quote from: 71 dB on July 21, 2010, 07:42:17 AMWhere do you draw the line of a potential human life? Is it wrong to not have sex? Is it wrong to use a condom? In what point can we start to talk about a potential human life? My solution to this philosophical problem is to draw the line half-way into the pregnancy.
This is sophomoric thinking if ever I saw it. There is a fundamental difference between
preventing pregnancy and
terminating pregnancy. There is nothing philosophical about it.
Abortion is used primarily as birth control by people too lazy, ignorant (or stupid), or selfish to take preventative steps, and who don't want to take responsibility for their actions.
Again, abortion should be legal, but let's not try to gloss over what happens with supposedly philosophical posturing.
Quote from: edward on July 21, 2010, 07:29:54 AM
I've got a good friend who's gay and who's spent a huge amount of time over the last two years helping to take care of his husband's elderly father who was recovering from a serious stroke. I'm not sure how letting him get married to the man he loves harmed the institution of family.
My wife and I can't have kids. Do you think we should we have been banned from marrying?
Just out of curiosity, have you ever been in love?
Typical liberal response. My argument flies over your head so you resort to some knee jerk emotional response by citing some feel-good personal anecdote. You are also confirming what i said by mention love, already redefining marriage not as institution specifically created to regulate procreation and child rearing (and by extension society), but as a mere engagement between two loving people, which is a selfish point of view.
Quote from: 71 dB on July 21, 2010, 07:33:42 AM
Homosexuals can't have children but so can't many heterosexuals either. Many heterosexuals don't even want children. The only thing needed for a marriage is two individuals loving each other.
Marriage is in
principle a union between two individuals with the specific purpose of producing and raising offsprings. The fact some heterosexual couples cannot have children does not change what marriage is. But by allowing two people to marry who cannot have children in
principle, you are redefining what marriage is and thus eliminating the need for the institution in the first place. After all, you don't need marriage to spend the rest of your life with somebody whom you love, so what would be the point? This is the biggest irony of all because while liberals are fighting so strongly to defend gay marriage, they are hard at work at destroying marriage as an institution in all facets of society. Divorce rates are on a staggering high and more and more people chose to simply live together rather then engage in marriage, since they no longer see the point in the institution. And they are right, there is no point to marriage once you change the definition of what marriage is in the first place. This is how liberals are destroying the institution of family.
Quote from: edward on July 21, 2010, 07:29:54 AM
Studies show that children raised in gay families aren't suffering from the situation.
Studies also show that families do not need fathers, which is utter bullshit.
Quote from: edward on July 21, 2010, 07:29:54 AM
It's about how much freedom you want to give to people. You have freedom in many ways (for example to express your thoughts here) and that freedom fades away when people stars to care too much about irresponsibility and get too moral about things.
Freedom is one thing, moral relativism is another. Liberals are not trying to free society from moral restrictions which may or may not be considered to be excessive, they are trying to annihilate all forms of moral absolutism under the rubric that all standards are arbitrary in the first place. Thus, society is slowly bending itself backwards to accommodate an infinite number of individual variables which slowly but surely are reverting civilization back into barbarism.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 21, 2010, 08:35:52 AM
Typical liberal response. My argunet flies over your head so you resort to some knee jerk emotional response by citing some feel-good personal anecdote.
Sorry, you don't have an argument. You have a collection of hypotheses all tossed together without evidence.
I'll give you about 2/10 for trolling: try harder next time.
Quote from: Todd on July 21, 2010, 07:05:11 AM
I don't know if abortion promotes promiscuity, though abortion itself is the height of irresponsibility. There is nothing more irresponsible than destroying a potential human life because it poses an inconvenience.
That written, I support legal, but not publicly funded, abortion, because ultimately, if people want to make horribly bad, irresponsible decisions that they will regret for the rest of their lives, they should generally be free to do so. Other shouldn't have to fund it, though.
Perhaps. It was the test which implied that being against a certain practice in
principle means one is in favor of restricting said practice in the first place. The fact i am against abortion from a moral point of view has nothing to do with whether i want or do not want the government to restrict it (i'm also against cheating from a moral point of view but i don't think people should go to jail for it). The problem is that liberalism is pushing abortion from a moral point of view as well as a legal one, by positioning their point view within moral parameters in the first place (a woman's right to chose!). They are saying that abortion should not only be illegal, but should also not be immoral as well. It should in fact be a
human right.
Quote from: Todd on July 21, 2010, 07:53:21 AM
Abortion is used primarily as birth control by people too lazy, ignorant (or stupid), or selfish to take preventative steps, and who don't want to take responsibility for their actions.
Indeed.
Economic Score: + 2.84
Social Score: - 5.81
My score pegs me as economically center-capitalist and socially libertarian.
That's what I expected - support individual rights and private enterprise.
Quote from: Todd on July 21, 2010, 07:53:21 AMAbortion is used primarily as birth control by people too lazy, ignorant (or stupid), or selfish to take preventative steps, and who don't want to take responsibility for their actions.
How about raped women? How about women who experience something terrible during the pregnancy? Sometimes abortion can be a responsible action.
Quote from: 71 dB on July 21, 2010, 08:56:39 AMHow about raped women? How about women who experience something terrible during the pregnancy? Sometimes abortion can be a responsible action.
Go back and reread what I wrote. I used the word
primarily, not
exclusively. Do you understand the difference? Your questions indicate you do not.
My view is that Government has no business being involved in abortion - that includes providing monies for abortions.
Quote from: Bulldog on July 21, 2010, 09:05:25 AMMy view is that Government has no business being involved in abortion - that includes providing monies for abortions.
A most sensible position.
Quote from: 71 dB on July 21, 2010, 08:56:39 AM
How about raped women? How about women who experience something terrible during the pregnancy? Sometimes abortion can be a responsible action.
Those are extreme cases which dot not in any way validate abortion. There are occasions when murder may be a necessity (self defence, war), but this does not mean murder should be legalized in principle.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 21, 2010, 08:43:50 AM
Perhaps. It was the test which implied that being against a certain practice in principle means one is in favor of restricting said practice in the first place. The fact i am against abortion from a moral point of view has nothing to do with whether i want or do not want the government to restrict it (i'm also against cheating from a moral point of view but i don't think people should go to jail for it). The problem is that liberalism is pushing abortion from a moral point of view as well as a legal one, by positioning their point view within moral parameters in the first place (a woman's right to chose!). They are saying that abortion should not only be illegal, but should also not be immoral as well. It should in fact be a human right.
Indeed.
why bother responding to this sack of sh*t, i told you guys this is a horrible, horrible human being.
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 21, 2010, 09:32:45 AM
why bother responding to this sack of sh*t, i told you guys this is a horrible, horrible human being.
You're using extremely ridiculous and hateful words. Given your posting history on the board, I expect better from you.
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 21, 2010, 09:32:45 AM
why bother responding to this sack of sh*t, i told you guys this is a horrible, horrible human being.
Ah, yes, you oabmarcus set the standard for decency.
Quote from: Bulldog on July 21, 2010, 09:38:53 AM
You're using extremely ridiculous and hateful words. Given your posting history on the board, I expect better from you.
I am merely telling the truth. To be frank, I am trying my best to hold back my emotions, I was originally planning to say something much worse!
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 21, 2010, 09:40:58 AM
I am merely telling the truth. To be frank, I am trying my best to hold back my emotions, I was originally planning to say something much worse!
Try to stay cool during these hot times.
Quote from: Todd on July 21, 2010, 09:38:59 AM
Ah, yes, you oabmarcus set the standard for decency.
Still too decent for my taste, real men swear and cuss. You can't reason with a piece of shit like him, he thinks he knows best for other people. How funny, I thought republicans hated "big government" or "government getting into our lives". Aren't both abortion and gay marriage exactly the very same thing the conservatives dread the most? i.e government's involvement with people's everyday liberties?
Just another blatant case of hypocrisy. Okay, imagine this scenario. des Prez has a 13 year old daughter, one day, a family relative comes from afar. He comes and rapes her. She gets pregnant, what will Prez do? Of course, he will say something along the line of "in this instance, abortion is okay". But what the right wing nut jobs are trying to do is BAN ANY FORM OF ABORTION PERIOD! Those pushing for this agenda didn't say: "oh, if your daughter got raped, we will let her abort it." NO. This is exactly what teh right wingers want, they don't give a damn about your freedom, just aslong their little bigoted brain don't explode, they'll do anything to deprived you from your freedoms. Whether it is gay rights, abortion rights.
to show some evidence, this is Sharron angle's belief on the matter: "when life give you lemons, make lemonade"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEHJSoNEyPw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LX0bIYe4_2k
do you really want to vote for someone like that? tell me, Republicans!
I have a feeling oabmarcus didn't even raid what i said.
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 21, 2010, 09:43:42 AM
You can't reason with a piece of shit like him, he thinks he knows best for other people. How funny, I thought republicans hated "big government" or "government getting into our lives". Aren't both abortion and gay marriage exactly the very same thing the conservatives dread the most? i.e government's involvement with people's everyday liberties?
Just another blatant case of hypocrisy.
I do enjoy a good temper tantrum when it's in writing.
Quote from: Bulldog on July 21, 2010, 09:38:53 AM
You're using extremely ridiculous and hateful words.
No, just statements of fact, as far as I can see.
I am often struck how often leftists/liberals respond, when presented with the opposing view, not with a well-reasoned rational argument to the ideas expressed, but an emotional tirade filled with pejoratives and labeling the non-liberal not only "wrong" but "evil".
Odd behavior, IMO.
Quote from: Franco on July 21, 2010, 10:00:09 AM
I am often struck how often leftists/liberals respond, when presented with the opposing view, not with a well-reasoned rational argument to the ideas expressed, but an emotional tirade filled with pejoratives and labeling the non-liberal not only "wrong" but "evil".
Odd behavior, IMO.
"you lie" joe wilson
"obama is a terroist" Teabaggers
"Obama hates white people" Glenn Beck
"barack HUSSEIN Obama"
..................
Quote from: Daverz on July 21, 2010, 09:55:02 AM
No, just statements of fact, as far as I can see.
Then you need to schedule a visit with your eye doctor.
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 21, 2010, 10:02:16 AM
"you lie" joe wilson
"obama is a terroist" Teabaggers
"Obama hates white people" Glenn Beck
..................
I was referring to this thread and others like it on this forum. But whenever anyone goes to that level it is merely an emotional outburst and not what I consider argumentation of a point of view.
Quote from: Franco on July 21, 2010, 10:05:08 AM
I was referring to this thread and others like it on this forum. But whenever anyone goes to that level it is merely an emotional outburst and not what I consider argumentation of a point of view.
Okay, i am all calm now. Please, let's discuss this topic in a reasonable, civil way.
Why should Abortion and Gay Marriage be illegal? Discuss, and support your argument with plenty of evidence please!
Economic score: +0.65
Social score: +0.17
Guess I am very centrist...
Quote from: Bulldog on July 21, 2010, 10:04:17 AM
Then you need to schedule a visit with your eye doctor.
Bulldog? how about Bullshit, i think that handle suits you better.
Quote from: Franco on July 21, 2010, 10:00:09 AM
I am often struck how often leftists/liberals respond, when presented with the opposing view, not with a well-reasoned rational argument to the ideas expressed, but an emotional tirade filled with pejoratives and labeling the non-liberal not only "wrong" but "evil".
I don't see any well-reasoned arguments in JdP's posts?
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 21, 2010, 10:07:31 AM
Okay, i am all calm now. Please, let's discuss this topic in a reasonable, civil way.
Why should Abortion and Gay Marriage be illegal? Discuss, and support your argument with plenty of evidence please!
Because we believe in individual freedom, and God is against it?
Which seems to be the stance of the voters most against it. Very confusing to me, this.
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 21, 2010, 10:07:31 AM
Okay, i am all calm now. Please, let's discuss this topic in a reasonable, civil way.
Why should Abortion and Gay Marriage be illegal? Discuss, and support your argument with plenty of evidence please!
I don't think they should be illegal, and never advocated such a thing. I don't care about gay marriage - but regarding abortions, I consider them a matter of private choice (same with end of life issues), but not something I should be forced into supporting by having government subsidize them with the taxes I've paid.
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 21, 2010, 10:10:30 AM
Bulldog? how about Bullshit, i think that handle suits you better.
I would hate to have to lock this one too, but you, in particular, give the appearance of being totally out of control. It's a pity really, but you need to get a grip or stay out of the Diner, where the topics seem to be too stirring for your emotions.
GB
Honestly, how did this thread get derailed?!
It's clear to anyone that this 'debate' will not be resolved.
So quit acting like children, and that goes for any side of the coin.
I mean seriously, people.
The Gurninator appears. Things are getting interestinger!
The derailing is as expected, involving the usual suspects.
Quote from: Daverz on July 21, 2010, 10:11:08 AM
I don't see any well-reasoned arguments in JdP's posts?
I see a reasoned argument that I don't happen to agree with, and he is not calling anyone names either.
The lesson I take away from this thread is that wedge issues matter!
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 21, 2010, 10:10:30 AM
Bulldog? how about Bullshit, i think that handle suits you better.
I didn't realize you're a foul-mouthed critter, but you are now on my radar.
Quote from: Franco on July 21, 2010, 10:13:07 AM
I don't think they should be illegal, and never advocated such a thing. I don't care about gay marriage - but regarding abortions, I consider them a matter of private choice (same with end of life issues), but not something I should be forced into supporting by having government subsidize them with the taxes I've paid.
What if a girl can't afford abortion procedures, shouldn't the government step in? We help out the poor with food stamps, and food banks, don't we? I don't like your use of the word "subsidize", no matter how hard the government subsidize abortion spending. It will have no real impact on the rate of abortion, people don't just go and get abortion. It's painful physically and emotionally for the patient, what some are asking is merely a matter of extending help to those who couldn't afford the procedures.
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 21, 2010, 10:20:25 AM
What if a girl can't afford abortion procedures, shouldn't the government step in?
No - you should step up to the plate and pay for it. 8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 21, 2010, 10:14:32 AM
I would hate to have to lock this one too, but you, in particular, give the appearance of being totally out of control. It's a pity really, but you need to get a grip or stay out of the Diner, where the topics seem to be too stirring for your emotions.
GB
or maybe the people who stir my emotions (that includes you btw) should stay away from the dinner. Why should the people who are sensible and rational always let the other side get away with outrageous conduct? That's not what you should shoot for. Me calling names is not okay, but them spreading hate and destroying lives is? What kind of logic is that?
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 21, 2010, 10:20:25 AM
What if a girl can't afford abortion procedures, shouldn't the government step in? We help out the poor with food stamps, and food banks, don't we? I don't like your use of the word "subsidize", no matter how hard the government subsidize abortion spending. It will have no real impact on the rate of abortion, people don't just go and get abortion. It's painful physically and emotionally for the patient, what some are asking is merely a matter of extending help to those who couldn't afford the procedures.
Yes, and that's the nub of the issue, IMO. Since this sort of situation is clearly the exception rather than the rule, people who would stand by it on its own fell they are being railroaded into general support because they would make an exception. I don't want MY tax $$$ being spent on abortion if it is being used as a form of birth control, although I would support it in the rare exception that you bring up.
But you can always bring up exceptions, they don't = the general situation.
8)
Quote from: Bulldog on July 21, 2010, 10:22:06 AM
No - you should step up to the plate and pay for it. 8)
so, the poor get fucked (again for the nth time), and their lives ruined forever. Is that your idea of a fair, just society?
Quote from: Franco on July 21, 2010, 10:13:07 AM
I don't think they should be illegal, and never advocated such a thing. I don't care about gay marriage - but regarding abortions, I consider them a matter of private choice (same with end of life issues), but not something I should be forced into supporting by having government subsidize them with the taxes I've paid.
I see abortion as a healthcare issue. If government is funding healthcare (in the US context it already does for some classes of people; young service men and women, for example), then I don't see a case for singling out legal abortions among healthcare procedures. And, no, not because some folk find it morally objectionable. And no, it's not only stupid sluts who need abortions, Todd.
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 21, 2010, 10:25:16 AM
but them spreading hate and destroying lives is? What kind of logic is that?
An opinion = nobody harmed.
And accusations of "destroying lives" coming from a pro-abortion POV is kind of funny.
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 21, 2010, 10:25:16 AM
or maybe the people who stir my emotions (that includes you btw) should stay away from the dinner. Why should the people who are sensible and rational always let the other side get away with outrageous conduct? That's not what you should shoot for. Me calling names is not okay, but them spreading hate and destroying lives is? What kind of logic is that?
Funny, you don't sound sensible and rational, you're the one that sounds like he hasn't even a vague handle on himself. You can be as pissed at me as you want, it doesn't hurt me a bit, and I can always make your posting career less worthwhile than it is now. You should keep that in mind.
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 21, 2010, 10:26:05 AM
Yes, and that's the nub of the issue, IMO. Since this sort of situation is clearly the exception rather than the rule, people who would stand by it on its own fell they are being railroaded into general support because they would make an exception. I don't want MY tax $$$ being spent on abortion if it is being used as a form of birth control, although I would support it in the rare exception that you bring up.
But you can always bring up exceptions, they don't = the general situation.
8)
Yeah, but the problem is. The far right groups, who are pushing for the legislation. Ban on abortion, meant to BAN ALL FORMS OF ABORTION. I think Sharron Angle made it rather clear. If you got pregnant, say raped by your own father. Too bad, the law says no abortion, and you are going to deliver that baby. How is that reasonable?
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 21, 2010, 10:20:25 AM
What if a girl can't afford abortion procedures, shouldn't the government step in?
No. It is unjust that I and others like me should be forced to pay for her irresponsibility and support a "procedure" I find unethical. If she cannot afford an abortion she can keep the child or put it up for adoption. But to think she should be shielded from any undesired consequences is not good public policy, IMO.
Quote from: Daverz on July 21, 2010, 10:27:18 AM
I see abortion as a healthcare issue. If government is funding healthcare (in the US context it already does for some classes of people; young service men and women, for example), then I don't see a case for singling out legal abortions among healthcare procedures. And, no, not because some folk find it morally objectionable. And no, it's not only stupid sluts who need abortions, Todd.
More or less my view as well. And those in need of abortion often will be those most in need of it, as well as least able to take the consequences of an unplanned pregnancy.
Quote from: Franco on July 21, 2010, 10:29:37 AM
No. It is unjust that I and others like me should be forced to pay for her irresponsibility
........which is an argument that can be put forward in most situations. Why should I pay for a war I am in disagreement with etc etc in absurdum
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 21, 2010, 10:29:35 AM
Yeah, but the problem is. The far right groups, who are pushing for the legislation. Ban on abortion, meant to BAN ALL FORMS OF ABORTION. I think Sharron Angle made it rather clear. If you got pregnant, say raped by your own father. Too bad, the law says no abortion, and you are going to deliver that baby. How is that reasonable?
It isn't reasonable. I wouldn't support it. Where your particular issue seems to lie is in thinking that "far right groups" actually represent any great number of people. The vast majority of 'conservatives' are not far right extremists, just like that vast majority of liberals aren't actual communists. Once the effing wingnuts start talking, the true majority gets drowned out pretty quick.
8)
Quote from: Lethe on July 21, 2010, 10:27:56 AM
An opinion = nobody harmed.
They can cast votes. They can elect senators, senators can enact laws.
Quote from: Lethe on July 21, 2010, 10:27:56 AM
And accusations of "destroying lives" coming from a pro-abortion POV is kind of funny.
Wait, why is it funny. See, when you say something totally out of blue like that, it kind helps to give me a full expanation. Why is my accusation kind of funny? Why?
Quote from: Franco on July 21, 2010, 10:29:37 AM
No. It is unjust that I and others like me should be forced to pay for her irresponsibility and support a "procedure" I find unethical. If she cannot afford an abortion she can keep the child or put it up for adoption. But to think she should be shielded from any undesired consequences is not good public policy, IMO.
I fail to see what possible public policy is served by forcing someone to carry a pregnancy to term. A pregnancy is not a trivial thing and can have serious health consequences.
Quote from: Franco on July 21, 2010, 10:29:37 AM
No. It is unjust that I and others like me should be forced to pay for her irresponsibility and support a "procedure" I find unethical. If she cannot afford an abortion she can keep the child or put it up for adoption. But to think she should be shielded from any undesired consequences is not good public policy, IMO.
But, there won't be additional taxes charged on you. I can't imagine that helping a few unlucky people will have a drastic effect on the budget, right? We are 14 trillion in the hole, the marginal cost is negligible.
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 21, 2010, 10:33:27 AM
Wait, why is it funny. See, when you say something totally out of blue like that, it kind helps to give me a full expanation. Why is my accusation kind of funny? Why?
You really can't guess? You're prioritising the convenience of a person over the life of a foetus.
Quote from: erato on July 21, 2010, 10:31:48 AM
........which is an argument that can be put forward in most situations. Why should I pay for a war I am in disagreement with etc etc in absurdum
Not really. A war is something that is usually the subject of elections - i.e. we elect a president on how he will handle such foreign policy issues. And national defense is one of the primary purposes of government. Paying for abortions is not. Nor are abortions comparable to a heart attack or other legitmate health care condition, paid for by government health insurance.
The vast majority of abortions are the result of irresponsible behavior at some level. No one chooses to have a heart attack but people have unprotected sex all the time, and expect someone else to pay for their mistakes.
Quote from: Lethe on July 21, 2010, 10:39:04 AM
You really can't guess? You're prioritising the convenience of a person over the life of a foetus.
if you deliver a fetus, is it a person? When is a person a person? Is an embryo a person? should we also ban the stoppage of sperm that is on its way to reach the egg? i.e. ban condoms? tell me where to draw the line.
Quote from: Franco on July 21, 2010, 10:39:42 AM
Not really. A war is something that is usually the subject of elections - i.e. we elect a president on how he will handle such foreign policy issues. And national defense is one of the primary purposes of government. Paying for abortions is not. Nor are abortions comparable to a heart attack or other legitmate health care condition, paid for by government health insurance.
The vast majority of abortions are the result of irresponsible behavior at some level. No one chooses to have a heart attack but people have unprotected sex all the time, and expect someone else to pay for their mistakes.
I can see your point but you also vote for what kind of social system you want. And irresponsibility aside (and all unwanted pregnancies surely aren't the result of irresponsibility) one need to consider the wider consequences of a system with lots of unwanted babies, however one feels about the conduct of people involved. IE: Are you sure that in the long run, the alternative isn't costlier to you?
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 21, 2010, 10:41:30 AM
if you deliver a fetus, is it a person? When is a person a person? Is an embryo a person?
A foetus can't take the choice over whether it is killed or not - a person can. It's just a distinction of consciousness - all are "alive", although obviously the further back you go the more far removed it becomes. A foetus is quite simply a small baby that a lot of people think is okay to kill.
Edit: elaborated.
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 21, 2010, 10:38:53 AM
But, there won't be additional taxes charged on you. I can't imagine that helping a few unlucky people will have a drastic effect on the budget, right? We are 14 trillion in the hole, the marginal cost is negligible.
Taxes going to pay for abortions will be money taken away from something more suitable for government to be doing, like national defense or border security, or (here's a radical idea) paying down the national debt - otherwise more taxes will have be collected.
And you missed the last part of my argument - it is not good public policy to encourage or enable irresponsible behavior.
Quote from: Franco on July 21, 2010, 10:39:42 AM
Not really. A war is something that is usually the subject of elections - i.e. we elect a president on how he will handle such foreign policy issues. And national defense is one of the primary purposes of government. Paying for abortions is not. Nor are abortions comparable to a heart attack or other legitmate health care condition, paid for by government health insurance.
It's as legitimate as any other procedure
that effects health.
Quote
The vast majority of abortions are the result of irresponsible behavior at some level. No one chooses to have a heart attack but people have unprotected sex all the time, and expect someone else to pay for their mistakes.
I get it, I get it. It's all about slut shaming.
A lot of people engage in behaviors that lead to to those heart attacks, and to diabetes, liver failure, etc. Smoking, alcoholism, bad eating habits, lack of exercise, etc.
Quote from: erato on July 21, 2010, 10:44:23 AM
I can see your point but you also vote for what kind of social system you want. And irresponsibility aside (and all unwanted pregnancies surely aren't the result of irresponsibility) one need to consider the wider consequences of a system with lots of unwanted babies, however one feels about the conduct of people involved.
While all "unplanned pregnancies" are not due to irresonsible behavior, I'd say the vast majority are. Out of the approximately 1,000,000 abortions performed in the US each year I think only a tiny number are for rape or incest.
There are many many couples who want to adopt a child.
Quote from: Franco on July 21, 2010, 10:52:28 AM
While all "unplanned pregnancies" are not due to irresonsible behavior, I'd say the vast majority are. Out of the approximately 1,000,000 abortions performed in the US each year I think only a tiny number are for rape or incest.
No contraception is 100% effective.
Quote from: Daverz on July 21, 2010, 10:48:57 AM
It's as legitimate as any other procedure that effects health.
I get it, I get it. It's all about slut shaming.
A lot of people engage in behaviors that lead to to those heart attacks, and to diabetes, liver failure, etc. Smoking, alcoholism, bad eating habits, lack of exercise, etc.
Most people did not cause their diabetes, but were diagnosed at an early age becuase of genetic makeup. We have laws against smoking in public buildings precisely because we do not wish to encourage that behavior, and government funded nutritonal guidelines to encourage a healthier lifestyle.
Public policy is based on these kind of issues, taxing what you don't want to encourage (energy consumption, cigarettes, etc.) and subsidizing only what is beneficial for society (healthy eating, energy conservation, etc.).
Quote from: erato on July 21, 2010, 10:53:37 AM
No contraception is 100% effective.
Right, but using no contraception is more likely to lead to a pregancy than using some kind of contraception.
Quote from: Franco on July 21, 2010, 10:52:28 AM
While all "unplanned pregnancies" are not due to irresonsible behavior, I'd say the vast majority are.
I don't know that, and neither do you.
Quote
There are many many couples who want to adopt a child.
There are a lot of children who go unadopted. In any case, I don't see ensuring the supply of adoptable children as a humane reason for making it difficult to get a legal abortion.
Quote from: Daverz on July 21, 2010, 11:04:14 AM
There are a lot of children who go unadopted. In any case, I don't see ensuring the supply of adoptable children as a humane reason for making it difficult to get a legal abortion.
There are certainly not enough healthy infants available for adoption. And the process of adoption is much more expensive than having an abortion - it can be as high as $20,000. Adoption is something government ought to be helping to fund, not abortions.
I don't advocate making abortions difficult to get, just that they are paid for by the people wanting them. If that makes it difficult for some people, it is my view they should be more careful if they cannot afford the consequences of their actions.
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 21, 2010, 10:41:30 AM
should we also ban the stoppage of sperm that is on its way to reach the egg? i.e. ban condoms?
Quote from: Daverz on July 21, 2010, 10:48:57 AM
I get it, I get it. It's all about slut shaming.
Tired, knee-jerk, so-called "liberal" chestnuts that get trotted out every once in such a "debate." 71db tried the first one earlier, and the argument is as hollow now as it was a few hours ago.
At least I now know clearly who some of the "liberal" nuts on the forum are.
Quote from: Daverz on July 21, 2010, 11:04:14 AM
I don't know that, and neither do you.
This is a blatantly dishonest response; indeed, it is responses like this that make some people impossible to take seriously on this subject. Below is a quick snippet from Wikipedia. Yes, it's Wikipedia (though the source is cited), and yes it's old, but I'd be more than surprised if the reasons have changed in the intervening years. To those who might maintain that the reasons have changed, I'd love to see some facts to back it up. Abortion is unambiguously a form of birth control, and its demand is driven overwhelmingly by irresponsible behavior.
(Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Reasons_for_abortions for more info.)
Reasons for abortions
In 2000, cases of rape or incest accounted for 1% of abortions.[26] Another study, in 1998, revealed that in 1987-1988 women reported the following reasons for choosing an abortion:[27]
• 25.5% Want to postpone childbearing
• 21.3% Cannot afford a baby
• 14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
• 12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
• 10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job
• 7.9% Want no (more) children
• 3.3% Risk to fetal health
• 2.8% Risk to maternal health
• 2.1% Other
Quote from: Franco on July 21, 2010, 10:58:53 AM
Most people did not cause their diabetes, but were diagnosed at an early age becuase of genetic makeup.
That's Type I diabetes.
Quote
We have laws against smoking in public buildings precisely because we do not wish to encourage that behavior, and government funded nutritonal guidelines to encourage a healthier lifestyle.
Public policy is based on these kind of issues, taxing what you don't want to encourage (energy consumption, cigarettes, etc.) and subsidizing only what is beneficial for society (healthy eating, energy conservation, etc.).
Oh, this is that Nanny State people complain about.
What behaviors do you want to effect by public policy? It seems to be primarily sexual behavior you want to punish. There are much less punitive ways to reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions, and they work.
Quote from: Lethe on July 21, 2010, 10:45:31 AM
A foetus can't take the choice over whether it is killed or not - a person can. It's just a distinction of consciousness - all are "alive", although obviously the further back you go the more far removed it becomes. A foetus is quite simply a small baby that a lot of people think is okay to kill.
Edit: elaborated.
But this would imply (taking this further) that people who carry out abortions, support them, and allow them to occur (the mother and other family members) are murderers and should be equated with other types of murderers. This is not the case, and most people would not advocate this.
I really think this particular issue does not turn on whether we value life or not (all sides would pretty much agree on this point in a general sense), or whether we define the terms correctly. It comes down to some fundamental beliefs and values (many of which are incompatible).
Personally, I don't see how this particular issue will ever be completely resolved unless: One side gives in, the sides can come to an agreed upon compromise, or one side disappears for some reason or the other side 'wins' (or one side is politically and perhaps militarily squashed). The liklihood of any of these seems quite low to me and so these issues would seem to be with us until some breakthrough takes place that changes the entire dynamic of the discussion.
Quote from: Franco on July 21, 2010, 10:00:09 AM
I am often struck how often leftists/liberals respond, when presented with the opposing view, not with a well-reasoned rational argument to the ideas expressed, but an emotional tirade filled with pejoratives and labeling the non-liberal not only "wrong" but "evil".
Odd behavior, IMO.
Its not just regular liberals though, politicians do the same thing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qVpMwqv7QM&feature=player_embedded
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 21, 2010, 11:37:08 AM
Its not just regular liberals though, politicians do the same thing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qVpMwqv7QM&feature=player_embedded
It's not just liberals either, to clarify.
Quote from: Todd on July 21, 2010, 11:19:37 AM
Tired, knee-jerk, so-called "liberal" chestnuts that get trotted out every once in such a "debate."
One only has to look back at the language in your posts. "Slut shaming" is only a colorful way of putting it.
Quote
At least I now know clearly who some of the "liberal" nuts on the forum are.
How is this kind of rhetoric any more acceptable than some intemperate naughty words.
Quote
This is a blatantly dishonest response
If Franco wanted to use statistics, I'm sure he could have found them.
Speaking for myself, I don't give a shit why women have abortions, unless they're being coerced or because they have poor access to contraceptive healthcare. I'm not in to panty sniffing.
Quote from: ukrneal on July 21, 2010, 11:36:59 AM
But this would imply (taking this further) that people who carry out abortions, support them, and allow them to occur (the mother and other family members) are murderers and should be equated with other types of murderers. This is not the case, and most people would not advocate this.
I really think this particular issue does not turn on whether we value life or not (all sides would pretty much agree on this point in a general sense), or whether we define the terms correctly. It comes down to some fundamental beliefs and values (many of which are incompatible).
Personally, I don't see how this particular issue will ever be completely resolved unless: One side gives in, the sides can come to an agreed upon compromise, or one side disappears for some reason or the other side 'wins' (or one side is politically and perhaps militarily squashed). The liklihood of any of these seems quite low to me and so these issues would seem to be with us until some breakthrough takes place that changes the entire dynamic of the discussion.
Not murderers, of course, but also their decision should be recognised as a failure to prevent a problem before it escalated. It's not murder to kill a pet either, but it's still something to be frowned upon.
I'm not sure it is about such strongly-held belief with a lot of people. My couple of posts in this thread have been playing devil's advocate, for example, and I find both sides have persuasive justifications. One thing I have noticed is that the more entrenched sides are often entrenched in political arguments as well - abortion is the hot subject of commentators of both the USA's major factions.
I don't think the individual's responsibility should be deferred to the government as easilly as "I can do this because the government says it is okay, stop questioning my actions or it will make me feel bad". I feel it self-evident that greater personal responsibility would lower the abortion rate, so how do we cultivate this?
Even if it is banned in the US (highly unlikely) as people like oabmarcus fear, then I am sure that many in the north would hop over to Canada to have it done, and people in the south would either go to Mexico or find charities that would inevitably spring up to help fund their travel. It's what happens in Ireland - women cross over to the north to have their abortions, then hop back.
Quote from: Daverz on July 21, 2010, 11:39:55 AM
One only has to look back at the language in your posts. "Slut shaming" is only a colorful way of putting it.
No, no, that's just the way you misinterpreted it.
Quote from: Daverz on July 21, 2010, 11:39:55 AM
How is this kind of rhetoric any more acceptable than some intemperate naughty words.
It's just useful when identifying nuts to avoid. There are some right wing nuts on the forum, and some plain old nuts (like Sean) that I also generally avoid. I suppose you can equate it with the sanctimonious rages that oabmarcus wrote if you like, it's your call.
Quote from: Daverz on July 21, 2010, 11:39:55 AM
Speaking for myself, I don't give a shit why women have abortions
Hey, me neither, but I don't want any public funds to pay for the procedure, and I can at least admit that the root cause in most cases is irresponsible behavior.
Quote from: Lethe on July 21, 2010, 11:57:31 AM
Not murderers, of course, but also their decision should be recognised as a failure to prevent a problem before it escalated. It's not murder to kill a pet either, but it's still something to be frowned upon.
I'm not sure it is about such strongly-held belief with a lot of people. My couple of posts in this thread have been playing devil's advocate, for example, and I find both sides have persuasive justifications. One thing I have noticed is that the more entrenched sides are often entrenched in political arguments as well - abortion is the hot subject of commentators of both the USA's major factions.
I don't think the individual's responsibility should be deferred to the government as easilly as "I can do this because the government says it is okay, stop questioning my actions or it will make me feel bad". I feel it self-evident that greater personal responsibility would lower the abortion rate, so how do we cultivate this?
Even if it is banned in the US (highly unlikely) as people like oabmarcus fear, then I am sure that many in the north would hop over to Canada to have it done, and people in the south would either go to Mexico or find charities that would inevitably spring up to help fund their travel. It's what happens in Ireland - women cross over to the north to have their abortions, then hop back.
I agree that when the issue is mixed in with politics and such, you (often) just get a lot of...combustion. For some, it is an agenda of which abortion is one element. We've watched some of those arguments here on this thread.
While I completely agree that more personal responsibility (and education) would reduce abortion, I am conncerned most about the role of government in the issue (and frankly in any issue). And the last issue you mention is a good one (from a practical point of view). That is exactly what some would do (you see it even in the US on tax related items like cigarettes, where people go to other states to buy them and then return).
Just to clarify, by values and beliefs, I was referring to things like: one's view on the role of government and how much they should participate in daily life, one's worldview, one's belief (or not) in god, etc. Perhaps this does simplify things a bit, but it is where I find the source of the discussion usually needs to begin. Once you get name calling and the like (where we decended to for part of the time here), there cannot be a constructive discussion.
Quote from: Todd on July 21, 2010, 11:58:40 AM
Hey, me neither, but I don't want any public funds to pay for the procedure, and I can at least admit that the root cause in most cases is irresponsible behavior.
I think this is shortsighted. It'll probably cost you much more in the end for the various societal costs of more unwanted children, e.g. prison construction. (This purely utilitarian argument is not mine. I believe it is a libertarian argument, e.g.
Freakonomics. My reasons have more to do with those moral absolutes that JdP goes on about. Just better moral absolutes than his.)
I gather that you are a libertarian(?) and would not support government healthcare anyway, so I don't know why abortion gets singled out.
But let's take a look at the list you posted anyway:
• 25.5% Want to postpone childbearing
• 21.3% Cannot afford a baby
• 14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
• 12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
• 10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job
• 7.9% Want no (more) children
• 3.3% Risk to fetal health
• 2.8% Risk to maternal health
• 2.1% Other
To turn things on their head, I think all of these are
responsible reasons for terminating a pregnancy, all net benefits to the taxpayer, and ones that I'm willing to kick in a few cents for.
Quote from: Lethe on July 21, 2010, 11:57:31 AM
I feel it self-evident that greater personal responsibility would lower the abortion rate, so how do we cultivate this?
I think the experiment has already been run in the western European countries. They have better access to contraception and sex education and much lower rates of abortion. And they also have a more mature attitude towards sexuality.
Quote from: Daverz on July 21, 2010, 12:47:44 PM
To turn things on their head, I think all of these are responsible reasons for terminating a pregnancy
As responsible as the drug addict who wants to commit himself, at our expense. Of course, responsible would have been not to do drugs in the first place, but to say that would be so mean of us...
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 21, 2010, 01:03:59 PM
As responsible as the drug addict who wants to commit himself, at our expense. Of course, responsible would have been not to do drugs in the first place, but to say that would be so mean of us...
Aren't there any witches for you to burn?
Now that i think of it, without liberal and progressive meddling into the family, the undermining of fatherly authority, the constant pushing for hedonistic and carefree "lifestyles", the complete rejection of middle class values, all those wonderful things liberals imposed upon our society, there probably wouldn't be so many drug abusers, as well as abortions. Yet, amusingly enough, liberals keep positioning themselves as the only "sane" solution to the problems they themselves have created.
Quote from: Todd on July 21, 2010, 11:19:37 AM
Tired, knee-jerk, so-called "liberal" chestnuts that get trotted out every once in such a "debate." 71db tried the first one earlier, and the argument is as hollow now as it was a few hours ago.
At least I now know clearly who some of the "liberal" nuts on the forum are.
I am glad I'm not the only one here calling people names, I am off the hook thanks to you!
Quote from: Todd on July 21, 2010, 11:19:37 AM
This is a blatantly dishonest response; indeed, it is responses like this that make some people impossible to take seriously on this subject. Below is a quick snippet from Wikipedia. Yes, it's Wikipedia (though the source is cited), and yes it's old, but I'd be more than surprised if the reasons have changed in the intervening years. To those who might maintain that the reasons have changed, I'd love to see some facts to back it up. Abortion is unambiguously a form of birth control, and its demand is driven overwhelmingly by irresponsible behavior.
(Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Reasons_for_abortions for more info.)
Reasons for abortions
In 2000, cases of rape or incest accounted for 1% of abortions.[26] Another study, in 1998, revealed that in 1987-1988 women reported the following reasons for choosing an abortion:[27]
• 25.5% Want to postpone childbearing
• 21.3% Cannot afford a baby
• 14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
• 12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
• 10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job
• 7.9% Want no (more) children
• 3.3% Risk to fetal health
• 2.8% Risk to maternal health
• 2.1% Other
So? Irresponsibility occurs all around us, you can always punish the person in question. but what good does that do in this instance? My entire argument is that anti-abortionist
punish people for their mistakes. But for what? There is no additional social welfare from infants in found dumpsters or overcrowded orphanages. Think of the big picture, what social welfare does your punishment of these women bring to our society? Nothing! When an irresponsible driver drove over the speed limit, you slap him/her with a 150 dollar fine. That's painful for most, but it's bearable, and most can make that 150 dollars back. For a young women (most in their early teens), the burden of motherhood would delay their education, complicated their financial situation, and in many cases ruin their lives (something you can't make back). In the end, nobody wins.
Quote from: Daverz on July 21, 2010, 12:47:44 PM
To turn things on their head, I think all of these are responsible reasons for terminating a pregnancy, all net benefits to the taxpayer, and ones that I'm willing to kick in a few cents for.
Well, you tried to turn it on its head, but it didn't work. All but the last three are perfect examples of irresponsible reasons. Your assertion that this would benefit the taxpayer is based on wishful thinking and nothing more. How would "Want no (more) children" translate into a net benefit to taxpayers, for instance? Indeed, how would any benefit accrue to taxpayers under any scenario, when considering the number of cases involved (800K+ per year currently)?
Try not to rely on
Freakonomics too much; some of the arguments in the book are dubious, and the one relating to abortion and crime is a perfect case. Anyone who reads that should also peruse some DOJ publications on prison spending in the 80s, 90s, and now in this century. If crime dropped so much due to abortion, why all the prisons? And does it follow logically that if there were fewer abortions that prison spending would have gone up even more? There are also some flaws with the statistical models used in the reasearch that have been pointed out by people who have no direct interest in the debate.
As to singling out abortion, well, it's what came up in the thread, and I must say that people who try to argue from a moral standpoint - any moral standpoint - end up failing. The notion that abortion is evil and should be banned ignores the reality that it has been practised for thousands of years and any ban will lead to truly barbaric consequences (eg, so-called "back alley" abortions) that should be avoided at all costs. On the other side, arguments that abortion is somehow moral purposely ignore or try to deny, or at least significantly downplay, the fact that abortion is the purposeful destruction of a potential human life (most of the aborted fetuses would become people) or that some other social benefits will accrue from the practice. This is more than dubious.
My standpoint is simple and doesn't rely on the morality of the act. Government ought to have a very limited role in people's lives, and that includes not only preventing abortions, but also funding them. I always find it amusing when people want the use of public funds without regulation. Doesn't work that way. Shouldn't work that way.
And make no mistake, there are plenty of other areas where I'd like to see public spending reduced or eliminated, some favored by "liberals" and some by "conservatives."
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 21, 2010, 01:36:42 PM
I am glad I'm not the only one here calling people names, I am off the hook thanks to you!
Think of the big picture, what social welfare does your punishment of these women bring to our society? Nothing!
I'm not sure what hook you are referring to. You were out of control and throwing around all manner of harsh insults. Most people don't consider the word 'nut' quite as offensive as what you were writing. Perhaps you do, who knows?
As to my punishment of women, what are you referring to? As I wrote several times, I think abortion should be legal, just not publicly funded. I merely pointed out that abortion is an irresponsible act caused by irresponsible behavior. Your speeding ticket analogy is worthless in this context, by the way.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 21, 2010, 01:27:52 PM
Now that i think of it, without liberal and progressive meddling into the family
"meddling" into the family? How about anti-abortionists meddling into Women's rights?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 21, 2010, 01:27:52 PM
the undermining of fatherly authority
how?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 21, 2010, 01:27:52 PM
the constant pushing for hedonistic and carefree "lifestyles",
you do realize that has more to do with economics than politics right? take China for example, the regime is very conservative, but as people become richer, they CAN AFFORD to indulge more. So, young people today in China tend to be more hedonistic, and live more carefree. But, the government, and its policies are nothing but old school "family values". Just recently they arrested a bunch of swingers in Nanjing for having group sex for God's sake! People's behavior is not related to the government policies at all!
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 21, 2010, 01:27:52 PM
the complete rejection of middle class values,
what are the middle class values? You must be really old, still clinging into the image of America in the 50's. Too bad, times has changed, and you either accept it, or get lost.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 21, 2010, 01:27:52 PM
all those wonderful things liberals imposed upon our society,
again how? how do you come up with these absurd assertions? You talk as if in the last 50 years there have been nothing but liberal presidents. If the liberals were so terrible, how come the republican presidents weren't able to "Change" things back to the way it used to be? Did everything you described cease during 8 years of Bush?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 21, 2010, 01:27:52 PM
there probably wouldn't be so many drug abusers, as well as abortions.
ahh, you do realize the out of control drug traffickers in the world is due to high prices right? Why are the prices so high? because it's illegal here, and that's not just a liberal or conservative policy either. The reason drug cartels go to all out war, and the reason why 3rd world country grow all that opium is because you guys illegalized it, thereby by the law of simple supply-demand economics, made prices of producing drugs soar. Thereby increase the drug problem, the only way to rid of it for good. IMO, is to legalize all drugs. It will be like unleashing a economic nuclear bomb, and the drug cartels will loose their drug profits, only then, do we have a shot at controlling the drug epidemic.
Abortion is one of those issues that calls for an unprincipled decision that government can enforce, rather than the moral one which takes one side entirely at the expense of the other. The best way is to adopt an escalating protection of fetuses as they develop. First trimester, no restriction, second trimester, states can impose medical necessity guidelines, third trimester, states can ban the procedure except to save the mother from grave risk to life and health. Naturally a health exception will be liberally interpreted as permissive almost everywhere. There will be hard cases, and in order to cover those doctors will be permitted discretion. So, the health provision has a real function.
There should be no federal restrictions, just those preventing states from further restrictions. All insurance policies should contain separate riders allowing the insured to pay the full premium cost of abortion services. No government could invalidate coverage no matter what someone not a party to the insurance thinks about it. That means all government based insurance policies would cover legal abortion procedures. Taxpayers in their role as moral censors would have the same rights as they do over which innocent civilians are killed by Predator strikes in Afghanistan, that is, none at all. Similarly I don't want to pay to execute retarded or mentally ill persons convicted of crimes. Yet I do. I don't expect government to be finely tailored to my sensibilities.
Quote from: Daverz on July 21, 2010, 12:47:44 PM
But let's take a look at the list you posted anyway:
• 25.5% Want to postpone childbearing
• 21.3% Cannot afford a baby
• 14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
• 12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
• 10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job
• 7.9% Want no (more) children
• 3.3% Risk to fetal health
• 2.8% Risk to maternal health
• 2.1% Other
To turn things on their head, I think all of these are responsible reasons for terminating a pregnancy, all net benefits to the taxpayer, and ones that I'm willing to kick in a few cents for.
In most cases these are good reasons though they will obviously not be morally good reasons. Morality is not usually a matter for the law except in the worst cases. That should apply here as elsewhere.
Quote from: Todd on July 21, 2010, 01:44:15 PM
My standpoint is simple and doesn't rely on the morality of the act. Government ought to have a very limited role in people's lives, and that includes not only preventing abortions, but also funding them.
Well put. The morality aspect is something for private individuals/families to consider, not Government. Seems to me that Government tends to get much too involved in matters that have nothing to do with the reasons for its existence. Here in the United States, Government even gets involved in college and professional athletics. It's a crazy world.
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 21, 2010, 01:59:46 PM
then we agree, illegal should be legal. That's all i need to hear.
I'm not sure what "illegal should be legal" means, but your prior response indicates that you are not, in fact, reading the posts, but imagining them to say what you want them to say.
Quote from: Bulldog on July 21, 2010, 01:56:53 PM
Well put. The morality aspect is something for private individuals/families to consider, not Government. Seems to me that Government tends to get much too involved in matters that have nothing to do with the reasons for its existence. Here in the United States, Government even gets involved in college and professional athletics. It's a crazy world.
Well it's important that USC forfeit Reggie Bush's Heisman; what's to understand?
you first said
Quote from: Todd on July 21, 2010, 01:44:15 PM
My standpoint is simple and doesn't rely on the morality of the act. Government ought to have a very limited role in people's lives, and that includes not only preventing abortions, but also funding them.
then you said
Quote from: Todd on July 21, 2010, 01:50:26 PM
As to my punishment of women, what are you referring to? As I wrote several times, I think abortion should be legal, just not publicly funded.[/b] I merely pointed out that abortion is an irresponsible act caused by irresponsible behavior. Your speeding ticket analogy is worthless in this context, by the way.
:o wait a minute, wait a minute, my BS meter is on red alert here. How does the government prevent abortion by legalize them? Isn't that a contradiction? oops, looks like i caught the tail of the fox after all! Typical hypocrisy!
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 21, 2010, 02:05:27 PM
you first said
then you said :o wait a minute, wait a minute, my BS meter is on red alert here. How does the government prevent abortion by legalize them? Isn't that a contradiction? oops, looks like i caught the tail of the fox after all! Typical hypocrisy!
Have a drink, or a sedative. I was illustrating how the government should not be involved in preventing abortions, or in funding them.
Edit: I had to change my quote since you obviously are never quite satisfied with your insults.
I'm glad to see that everyone here now agrees that it is inappropriate for Government to be involved in human reproduction - I love this board. :)
First, I want to reiterate a point, which is the central one for me. Bringing a pregnancy to term is not a trivial thing, though many people seem to think so, and it
is a health issue. Why single it out among many health issues that may be caused by behavior?
Quote from: Todd on July 21, 2010, 01:44:15 PM
Well, you tried to turn it on its head, but it didn't work. All but the last three are perfect examples of irresponsible reasons. Your assertion that this would benefit the taxpayer is based on wishful thinking and nothing more. How would "Want no (more) children"
Setting aside the taxpayers for a moment, I don't want people who don't want children adding more fucked up children to the world. I don't want to force them to get that abortion, but wouldn't want to put barriers in their way, either.
We can make it a tax writeoff rather than a direct benefit. Sounds better to me than people getting to write their dependents off on their taxes. Right now I pay for someone elses brat to take up breathing space.
[Agree on the
Freakonomics comments. It was just an example of a recent variant of the utilitarian argument from some libertarians].
Quote
I always find it amusing when people want the use of public funds without regulation.
The regulation has to make some sense. An inquisition about whether an abortion is for a "responsible" enough reason does not make sense to me, as to me the outcome is the same.
Abortion itself is already highly regulated by both Federal and State governments.
Of course we are going to disagree on this because I think there should be universal healthcare, and abortion services should be part of that.
Quote from: Bulldog on July 21, 2010, 02:22:30 PM
I'm glad to see that everyone here now agrees that it is inappropriate for Government to be involved in human reproduction - I love this board. :)
You forgot the guy who wouldn't agree that the Renaissance was a good thing, let alone that nasty Enlightenment.
Quote from: Daverz on July 21, 2010, 02:35:56 PM
An inquisition about whether an abortion is for a "responsible" enough reason does not make sense to me, as to me the outcome is the same.
Who said anything about any kinds of test (or inquisition, if you will) as a prerequisite for providing abortion? One of my points all along has been that abortion is the height of irresponsibility. It is used as a form of birth control because the pregnancy to be terminated is inconvenient, and the poll data perfectly illustrates that. If a person wants an abortion and the method to fund it is there, then that's that. It doesn't mean the act is responsible. A tax writeoff is the same thing as a taxpayer funded program, and I oppose it for the same reason.
Quote from: Todd on July 21, 2010, 02:48:56 PM
Who said anything about any kinds of test (or inquisition, if you will) as a prerequisite for providing abortion?
Should have made it clear I was talking about the regulation of any hypothetical government subsidy here. (Hell, let's make it a low interest micro-loan, I'd be cool with that.)
Quote
One of my points all along has been that abortion is the height of irresponsibility.
The abortion itself is irresponsible, or the pregnancy? I don't see the reasoning for the abortion itself being irresponsible. The act that led to the pregnancy may be irresponsible (not using a condom, etc.), but once one has an unwanted pregnancy, how is abortion not a responsible way to deal with it?
Or are you saying that the only responsible way to deal with a
pregnancy is to bring it to term?
By the way, in those statistics we've been bandying about, there's still no breakdown of how often an unwanted pregnancy is the result of contraceptive failure. They are simply the reasons we would expect for why a pregnancy would be unwanted, and say nothing about the circumstances leading to the pregnancy (other than there was some fucking going on...in most cases).
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 21, 2010, 09:43:42 AM
Aren't both abortion and gay marriage exactly the very same thing the conservatives dread the most? i.e government's involvement with people's everyday liberties?
You are confusing Republicans with Libertarians, Republican's want no or little government involvement in business, yet they want heavy government control of all of peoples lives.
I left the Democratic Party back in the early 1980's as they sold out to big corporate interest and adopted the idea of international business being supreme over individual countries, just like the Republican Party. I was attracted to the Libertarian Party because of their stand on personal freedom, such as removing victimless crimes and decimalizing drugs and taxing their sales.
I was a member of Libertarian Party for many years, but I left because I do not agree with laissez-faire capitalism. Then I found my home with the Green Party which agrees with me in both economic and social issues.
I live in Nevada and I believe Sharron Angle is the most dangerous person ever to enter politics, she has a jahad against individual freedom of every stripe. Her absolute stand on abortion is HATEFUL and totally lacks compassion for incest and rape victims. In addition she wants to do away with Social Security and Medicare. Even though I am a green party member, I am voting for Democrat Harry Reid. Sharron Angle is a modern day extreme right-wing fascist.
http://www.sharronsundergroundbunker.com/ (http://sharron%20angle's%20Underground%20Bunker)
Quote from: drogulus on July 21, 2010, 01:53:41 PM
The best way is to adopt an escalating protection of fetuses as they develop. First trimester, no restriction, second trimester, states can impose medical necessity guidelines, third trimester, states can ban the procedure except to save the mother from grave risk to life and health.
This sounds very reasonable to me.
Quote from: Franco on July 21, 2010, 10:00:09 AM
I am often struck how often leftists/liberals respond, when presented with the opposing view, not with a well-reasoned rational argument to the ideas expressed, but an emotional tirade filled with pejoratives and labeling the non-liberal not only "wrong" but "evil".
Odd behavior, IMO.
I disagree there is nothing wrong with exposing EVIL when it presents it's ugly head, if you reread this thread you will see they also presented well-reasoned rational counter arguments which were much more effective than the irrational ranting's of the extreme right-wingers.
Quote from: Daverz on July 21, 2010, 10:37:47 AM
I fail to see what possible public policy is served by forcing someone to carry a pregnancy to term. A pregnancy is not a trivial thing and can have serious health consequences.
I agree with this 100%, babies must wanted. In additional young girls should not be giving birth especially if they are still in school. This is evil to require them to do so. If the pregnancy was with a loving partner and the woman is of legal age, she may decide to have the baby and give it up for adoption. But to force a pregnancy of someone who was forceable raped or was a victim of incest is evil in the extreme! Remember the health of the baby is based on the heath of the mother, so forcing a mother to have baby under such circumstances not only ruins her life but the life of the unborn child. It is better to match a sperm cell and an egg from a loving couple instead.
_________________________________________
As a woman I resent the fact that we are viewed as
baby-making machines. Indeed I look forward to the day when babies never grow in our bellies but are grown in laboratories from our removed egg and sperm cells.
IMHO since men cannot bear children they should have NO opinion one way or the other on abortion, it is a woman's issue NOT a man's issue. Men are ONLY sperm donors and all the work of producing a viable human being is completely in the wombs of women. If would be different if Men could get pregnant but they cannot not!
A rape victim DID NOT want to be raped! A little girl didn't want to be a victim of incest. To say that these girls and woman must spend nine months growing an offspring of the hateful monster that did this to them is INHUMAN and DETESTABLE. They should have abortions and in the case of the little girl allowed to go back to school and complete her education. They both will need sociological counseling to deal with trauma they were forced to endure.
Also one of the reasons I am all for gay marriage other than it gives gay couples the same legal rights as straight couples is it recognizes gay's
great contribution to population control. We need to get the Earth's population under control as the Earth only has so many resources and our population is WAY beyond it's maximum sustainable limit. Both the Gay lifestyle and abortions can help relieve the burden of an overpopulated Earth. Wars can also control population by killing our young boys, but I find war morally repugnant.
QuoteAs a woman I resent the fact that we are viewed as baby-making machines. Indeed I look forward to the day when babies never grow in our bellies but are grown in laboratories from our removed egg and sperm cells.
You are officially the scariest person on this forum. I can already imagine the progressive utopia, a lesser grim/dark version of ingsoc with more technological enslavement and dependence. But hey, there probably won't be as much paperwork.
Quote
As a woman I resent the fact that we are viewed as baby-making machines.
By whom? Since the dawn of time men have bent themselves backward to serve women. Millions of men have sacrificed themselves, often with their very lives, in order to protect and secure women (and children). Indeed, the natural role of men is to create the proper environment so that women may be free to nurture and support the race, free from the hardships and dangers inherent in securing a natural environment. Even after fifty years of artificial feminine endorsement, men are still doing all the dangerous jobs, they are still dying in wars in staggering numbers (while women in the military are generally kept away from the front lines, while still being paid the same. Nice deal huh?), and they are still expected to take on all the responsibilities, while being blamed for it at the same time. Somehow however, all this was simply not good enough for women. I wonder whether anything will ever be good enough for them.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 21, 2010, 06:05:10 PM
You are officially the scariest person on this forum.
Abso-freakin'-lutely! She left even
you in the dust long ago. Honest to Christ, I might have to even turn to religion to save my soul after a year of reading
The World According to Teresa. :o :o
8)
----------------
Now playing:
Brautigam, Ronald - Hob 17 03 Arietta in Eb con 12 variazioni
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 21, 2010, 06:05:10 PM
You are officially the scariest person on this forum. I can already imagine the progressive utopia, a lesser grim/dark version of ingsoc with more technological enslavement and dependence. But hey, there probably won't be much paperwork.
Coming from you that is just weird as you are the
rudest extreme right-wing lunatic I have ever meet on any forum or even in person. What made you such and mean and nasty person?
It makes me even more sad that you view us not only as baby-making machines but that you can force your will on what we do with our bodies. Someday technology will catch up and all of your bigotry against women, the poor, the homeless, the sick will no longer matter. Until then I hope you get help for both your personality and your EXTREMELY inhuman political views.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 21, 2010, 06:15:38 PM
Abso-freakin'-lutely! She left even you in the dust long ago. Honest to Christ, I might have to even turn to religion to save my soul after a year of reading The World According to Teresa. :o :o
8)
Good idea I highly recommend Religion, unlike some I will not try to force mine on you, I will support whichever Religion you choose. However it will help you see things from a more moral perspective.
I take great offense at your highly offensive comments as
all of my writing is HIGHLY moral, pro-freedom, pro-people with an aim to making a better society for all. :)
Quote from: Daverz on July 21, 2010, 02:41:32 PM
You forgot the guy who wouldn't agree that the Renaissance was a good thing, let alone that nasty Enlightenment.
Count me in. There was an inordinate amount of whites.
Quote from: Teresa on July 21, 2010, 06:23:07 PM
Coming from you that is just weird as you are the rudest extreme right-wing lunatic I have ever meet on any forum or even in person. What made you such and mean and nasty person?
Not to speak for him, but I don't think I'd really classify him as right-wing, nor extreme, and being rude and a lunatic are both pluses in my book.
I just right-wing for the lulz.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 21, 2010, 06:56:19 PM
I just right-wing for the lulz.
Hence the rude and lunatic and pluses. 8)
Well, the final solution would be for people to not use drugs, have sex, or commit crimes. But people are stupid...
Quote from: Greg on July 21, 2010, 07:28:41 PM
Well, the final solution would be for people to not use drugs, have sex, or commit crimes. But people are stupid...
Things were a lot better when fathers still knew best...
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 21, 2010, 07:32:10 PM
Things were a lot better when fathers still knew best...
Luckily, my parents still do. :)
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 21, 2010, 06:05:10 PM
You are officially the scariest person on this forum. I can already imagine the progressive utopia, a lesser grim/dark version of ingsoc with more technological enslavement and dependence. But hey, there probably won't be as much paperwork.
By whom? Since the dawn of time men have bent themselves backward to serve women. Millions of men have sacrificed themselves, often with their very lives, in order to protect and secure women (and children). Indeed, the natural role of men is to create the proper environment so that women may be free to nurture and support the race, free from the hardships and dangers inherent in securing a natural environment. Even after fifty years of artificial feminine endorsement, men are still doing all the dangerous jobs, they are still dying in wars in staggering numbers (while women in the military are generally kept away from the front lines, while still being paid the same. Nice deal huh?), and they are still expected to take on all the responsibilities, while being blamed for it at the same time. Somehow however, all this was simply not good enough for women. I wonder whether anything will ever be good enough for them.
I'm wondering if Teresa has ever read Huxley's Brave New World. It's a dystopia where babies are mass produced in factories, and words like "mother" and "father" have become obscenities.
It is, however, a sad fact that for most of human history men primarily valued women for their ability to produce babies, and little else. It's mostly only in Euro American society in the last two hundred years or so that that pattern has changed.
Quote from: kishnevi on July 21, 2010, 08:12:37 PM
It is, however, a sad fact that for most of human history men primarily valued women for their ability to produce babies, and little else.
Except that is not true. Watch this video, then try to revisit history with a new understanding of masculinity and femininity as two halves of a greater whole, each being unable to function without the other:
http://www.mensaction.net/video/AllThingsStartWithAPregnancy/
The idea that men and women are two separate entities and that their natural roles can be reversed on a whim is not only unnatural, but its an abomination, pure and simple. Living in western society has become one continuous struggle between our natural instincts and the forced need to believe that two plus two equals five, and all the cognitive dissonances are making people
miserable. Ever wondered why primitive folks seem to be so much happier then we are, despite the physical harshness of their existence?
Quote from: kishnevi on July 21, 2010, 08:12:37 PM
I'm wondering if Teresa has ever read Huxley's Brave New World. It's a dystopia where babies are mass produced in factories, and words like "mother" and "father" have become obscenities.
It is, however, a sad fact that for most of human history men primarily valued women for their ability to produce babies, and little else. It's mostly only in Euro American society in the last two hundred years or so that that pattern has changed.
Yes I have read Brave New World as I am a big Science Fiction fan. This and current scientific research is how I know the days of women enduring nine months of pregnancy are numbered.
However I do not believe children should be raised by the state but have loving and caring parents trained in child rearing. Yes I believe one should pass a child rearing course before allowed to have children. Small babies and small children cannot defend themselves against abusive parents. We need better ways to protect defenseless children.
You are correct, at least women now are somewhat valued for more than our bodies, and I'm glad I am living now and not 200 years ago! :)
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 21, 2010, 08:17:53 PM
Except that is not true. Watch this video, then try to revisit history with a new understanding of masculinity and femininity as two halves of a greater whole, each being unable to function without the other:
http://www.mensaction.net/video/AllThingsStartWithAPregnancy/
The idea that men and women are two separate entities and that their natural roles can be reversed on a whim is not only unnatural, but its an abomination, pure and simple. Living in western society has become one continuous struggle between our natural instincts and the forced need to believe that two plus two equals five, and all the cognitive dissonances are making people miserable. Ever wondered why primitive folks seem to be so much happier then we are, despite the physical harshness of their existence?
No wonder your ideas are so goofy you have been listening to unintelligent people such as Elder George of the
Men's Action to Rebuild Society.
Elder George says
"New comes the creative mind of the male gender and nowhere else".
Any intelligent person knows this is PURE HOGWASH! For example there are many women inventors Famous Women Inventors of the Modern Era (http://www.women-inventors.com/Women-Inventors.asp)
I just wasted 30 minutes listening to this brain-dead twisted male supremacist.
However he is right about two things, eating healthy is better than taking medication for conditions caused by eating poorly. And it is better to live in a non-polluted environment.
He tries to turn everything in life into masculine and feminine and says
"nothing in life happens without a pregnancy" This is so wrong and bizarre in the extreme! The existence of women inventors, disproves nearly everything he says, since he claims only men have creative minds.
Quote from: 71 dB on July 21, 2010, 03:40:47 AM
I want to be evaluated from what I say.
I would be curious how you score but I respect your right not to take the test. So far I am in agreement with all of your posts, I believe your score would be close to mine. :)
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 21, 2010, 05:24:27 AM
I'm moderately authoritarian, because i'm against foreign aids, immigration, gay marriage and abortion, and because i want to restrict the amount of filth our children are exposed to in the media. At the same time, i'm "moderate" because i strongly disagree that our civil rights should not be violated to stop terrorism. Somehow i get the feeling this test is a bit biased.
I also voted to restrict the amount of filth our children are exposed to in the media. Indeed I would go further as children are mirrors of us. I would support a ban on all dirty words, graphic descriptions of violence, rape and murder from all forms of music. In addition I would completely ban pornography and movies rated R and up, ALL the great movies I have seen have been rated
G, PG and
PG-13.
However I am for monitored foreign aid that actually gets to the people in need, controlled immigration, gay marriage and a woman's right to choose.
Finally I agree with you our civil rights should not be violated to stop terrorism. I do not believe in giving up ANY of my freedoms to feel safer. Give me liberty or give me death.
Quote from: Teresa on July 21, 2010, 10:56:53 PM
I also voted to restrict the amount of filth our children are exposed to in the media. Indeed I would go further as children are mirrors of us. I would support a ban on all dirty words, graphic descriptions of violence, rape and murder from all forms of music. In addition I would completely ban pornography and movies rated R and up, ALL the great movies I have seen have been rated G, PG and PG-13.
You are a scream. For a person who stresses individual freedom, you sure have an obsession with banning. I can see why you and the Libertarian Party would be a poor match.
Quote from: Bulldog on July 22, 2010, 12:09:40 AM
You are a scream. For a person who stresses individual freedom, you sure have an obsession with banning. I can see why you and the Libertarian Party would be a poor match.
Freedom is a fine balance, there is
freedom to and
freedom from.
Quote from: Teresa on July 22, 2010, 12:36:22 AM
Freedom is a fine balance, there is freedom to and freedom from.
As in one person freedom is another persons straighjacket. I don't see how you can reconcile the two.
Quote from: Teresa on July 22, 2010, 12:36:22 AM
Freedom is a fine balance, there is freedom to and freedom from.
Freedom, for me, means having the freedom to make choices
for myself, i.e. not living under some regime that has made the choices for me.
Quote from: Teresa on July 21, 2010, 10:45:56 PM
I would be curious how you score but I respect your right not to take the test. So far I am in agreement with all of your posts, I believe your score would be close to mine. :)
Yes, our score would be similar for sure but there are some things we seem to disargee. See below:
Quote from: Teresa on July 21, 2010, 10:45:56 PMI also voted to restrict the amount of filth our children are exposed to in the media. Indeed I would go further as children are mirrors of us. I would support a ban on all dirty words, graphic descriptions of violence, rape and murder from all forms of music. In addition I would completely ban pornography and movies rated R and up, ALL the great movies I have seen have been rated G, PG and PG-13.
I would not restrict. I am not worried about children seeing filthy things. Let me explain why. Because the filth is out there. We can't remove it. So, sooner or later children will encounter with it and it will be a shock.
So, I think it's better if children see things and discuss about them with their parents openly. Seeing violence becomes harmless if the child is explained what real violence is about and made to understand it's consequences. I believe that is the way we raise people that don't resolve to violence easily. Education is better than information hiding that just makes it more interesting for children.
Quote from: Teresa on July 21, 2010, 10:56:53 PM
I would support a ban on all dirty words, graphic descriptions of violence, rape and murder from all forms of music. In addition I would completely ban pornography and movies rated R and up, ALL the great movies I have seen have been rated G, PG and PG-13
Once again you know better about what people want than those people themselves do ??? I would marginally rather live in Josquin's world than yours :-\
I took the test after all but I repeat: these tests do oversimplify. For example: I answered "neutral" for the question about minimum wages. It depends on whether there is a Basic Income system or not.
Without Basic Income I want minimum wages up
With Basic Income I want minimum wages kept as they are or down a little bit.
Just one example how things are linked together, something that these gallups tend to ignore.
Economic score: -5.16
Social score: -5.22
Your score pegs you as economically leftist and socially libertarian.
Economic leftists mostly support strict economic controls and programs to assure that the poor are elevated to a higher position in society.
Social libertarians generally believe that the government should not judge morality, and are generally against the illegalization of things that do not directly affect other people in a negative way. Many strong social libertarians may also be social progressives, favoring legislation to correct what they see as socially backwards governmental regulation, although some simply wish for the government to make little judgment on social matters.
Quote from: Lethe on July 22, 2010, 02:39:37 AM
Once again you know better about what people want than those people themselves do ??? I would marginally rather live in Josquin's world than yours :-\
Actually this was one of the few things I was agreeing with
Josquin des Prez when he said
"(he) voted to restrict the amount of filth our children are exposed to in the media". I responded I would go further since children are mirrors of us. I would protect all of society NOT just children.
Since I am a senior I lived back when possessing any kind of pornography would land you in Jail, when musical lyrics were clean. When most movies were wholesome and the whole family could enjoy them. Movies were G and PG (they didn't have PG-13 yet) and very, very rarely R. If a movie got a dreaded "R" rating it was edited so it would get a "PG" as they didn't want to loose the ticket sales.
Modern American morals have gotten so degenerate because of the legalization of Porn, the relaxation of musical censorship, and other immoral attacks on society. It is time that we admit that keeping the filth out of civil society was the correct course of action. Censorship on moral grounds is constitutional and highly recommended to get our country back to the greatness it once had.
We will have to hear from
Josquin des Prez to see if he would also remove filth from society as a whole not just from children. :)
It is not that I believe I know better what people want, it's just that
I FIRMLY BELIEVE THERE ARE MINIMUM STANDARDS OF DECENCY and we have moved away from that and into the abyss. It is time we moved back to a decent society with moral standards. That's all I am saying. Remember why the Roman Empire fell? :(
So once you've banned all the degenerate music, action movies, and people videoing what they do in their bedrooms every day (unless you wish to meddle here as well - "DON'T PUT IT IN THAT HOLE THAT IS A DEGENERATE ATTACK ON SOCIETY"), what other adult things will you ban because children might encounter? Perhaps you should ban short skirts and the ability for men to go topless in case they are too sexually suggestive.
I suppose the question is, in your super freedom-loving dictatorship, what won't you interfere with or simply ban?
Quote from: Lethe on July 22, 2010, 03:59:14 AM
So once you've banned all the degenerate music, action movies, and people videoing what they do in their bedrooms every day (unless you wish to meddle here as well - "DON'T PUT IT IN THAT HOLE THAT IS A DEGENERATE ATTACK ON SOCIETY"), what other adult things will you ban because children might encounter? Perhaps you should ban short skirts and the ability for men to go topless in case they are too sexually suggestive.
I suppose the question is, in your super freedom-loving dictatorship, what won't you interfere with or simply ban?
It's called getting our country BACK! It would be up to the voters of each individual community to re-establish their community standards of decency. I do not believe in dictatorship but complete democracy of the people, not corporations! It is money-grubbing corporations pushing this smut and degrading the morals of our country as they know they can make tons of money by appealing to human's basic animal instincts.
No decent person has a problem with what anyone does in their bedroom, however when they bring it out on public display that crosses the line.
At least Child Pornography and bestiality are still illegal in the United States and are completely banned. What is wrong with banning the other filth? :o
Quote from: Teresa on July 22, 2010, 04:22:06 AM
It would be up to the voters of each individual community to re-establish their community standards of decency.
This is what happens now to some extent. States that more strongly restrict abortion or gay rights do so because the majority of population wants that.
Quote from: Teresa on July 22, 2010, 04:22:06 AM
It is money-grubbing corporations pushing this smut and degrading the morals of our country as they know they can make tons of money by appealing to human's basic animal instincts.
I see, and only you from your ivory tower are fit to lead the idiots. I'd rather let people do what they want and offer guidance, not ban everything they enjoy. This is why your ideas will not work, they will have to be forced onto people as a lot of it involves removing freedoms they enjoy and do not wish to lose.
Quote from: Teresa on July 22, 2010, 04:22:06 AM
What is wrong with banning the other filth? :o
Because only in your imagination do the majority agree with a lot of what you consider "filth".
Your standards are arbritrary and hopelessly utopian.
Lethe filth is filth and you don't need an advanced degree to figure that out. If you have to hide something when someone knocks on the door, that would be filth. It really is very simple. :)
I would hide my artwork due to it being embarasingly bad, I guess that needs a good hit with the banhammer :P
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 21, 2010, 06:15:38 PM
Abso-freakin'-lutely! She left even you in the dust long ago. Honest to Christ, I might have to even turn to religion to save my soul after a year of reading The World According to Teresa. :o :o
8)
----------------
Now playing:
Brautigam, Ronald - Hob 17 03 Arietta in Eb con 12 variazioni
But it's progressive...
And free-thinking...
And...
Quote from: Teresa on July 22, 2010, 04:22:06 AM
At least Child Pornography and bestiality are still illegal in the United States and are completely banned.
And these things should stay banned. It is about protecting children and animals from exploitation.
Quote from: Teresa on July 22, 2010, 04:22:06 AMWhat is wrong with banning the other filth? :o
Lethe already answered this. If we ban everything that some people think is filth, we end up banning everything. The solution is to ban the worst filth and minimize the problems of rest of the filth.
Quote from: Teresa on July 22, 2010, 04:36:27 AM
Lethe filth is filth and you don't need an advanced degree to figure that out. If you have to hide something when someone knocks on the door, that would be filth. It really is very simple. :)
You've never had anything intimate that you wanted to hide from people? Personally, I don't keep my sex toys in the vestibule.
Quote from: 71 dB on July 22, 2010, 04:53:10 AM
And these things should stay banned. It is about protecting children and animals from exploitation.
This from Finland, where men are men and sheep are terrified... ::)
8)
Quote from: 71 dB on July 22, 2010, 04:53:10 AM
And these things should stay banned. It is about protecting children and animals from exploitation.
Lethe already answered this. If we ban everything that some people think is filth, we end up banning everything. The solution is to ban the worst filth and minimize the problems of rest of the filth.
Exactly. Before long, we'll have nothing but the wall to stare at. And then people will ban the wall because it might make you think of filthy things out of boredom. And then people might ban your brain because it might make you think of filthy things, too. And then everyone will be dead.
Quote from: Teresa on July 21, 2010, 10:32:57 PM
Any intelligent person knows this is PURE HOGWASH! For example there are many women inventors Famous Women Inventors of the Modern Era (http://www.women-inventors.com/Women-Inventors.asp)
Here's your answer:
http://www.theabsolute.net/ottow/sexcharh.html
(http://newscientist.ulb.ac.be/divers/curie.jpg)
Feminine success, an exception rather then the rule, is only really masculine success under a different guise. Elder George is of course speaking of the masculine principle in an absolute sense, which often times happens to apply to a rare subset of women as well, whom because of whatever biological mishap are more man then woman, as per Weininger's theory. As you can see, there are no holes in my argument.
Oh, my.... I see that Gurn's locking of Teresa's "Progressives" thread has only shifted the site of the madness. Looking through the last few pages of this thread and seeing the ≈1:10 ratio of common sense to lunacy, my initial amusement soon turned to despair.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 21, 2010, 06:05:10 PM
You are officially the scariest person on this forum. I can already imagine the progressive utopia, a lesser grim/dark version of ingsoc with more technological enslavement and dependence. But hey, there probably won't be as much paperwork.
Funny...but Kafka might disagree.
Quote from: Teresa on July 21, 2010, 06:29:35 PM
I highly recommend Religion, unlike some I will not try to force mine on you
Your "Progressive" agenda is nothing
but an effort to force your wacky religion on EVERYONE.
Quote from: Greg on July 21, 2010, 07:28:41 PM
Well, the final solution would be for people to not use drugs, have sex, or commit crimes. But people are stupid...
Sigh. Ain't it the truth! And what's really tragic is that the stupidest of all think they're really
smart, that they know what's best for everyone else, and when Pie in the Sky is on offer they turn out en masse at the polls to place their orders!
Quote from: Teresa on July 21, 2010, 10:32:57 PM
No wonder your ideas are so goofy you have been listening to unintelligent people
This may be the most hilariously ironic statement I've seen all year!
Quote from: Bulldog on July 22, 2010, 12:09:40 AM
You are a scream. For a person who stresses individual freedom, you sure have an obsession with banning.
Her thread on "Progressives" already made quite clear that she supports totalitarianism as long as it's justified by pretty rhetoric (bet she
loved "the Workers' Paradise"). Isn't it comforting to know that if you and she resided in the same jurisdiction, her vote would count as much as yours?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 22, 2010, 05:34:50 AM
Here's your answer:
http://www.theabsolute.net/ottow/sexcharh.html
"Selected by Kevin Solway
from the 1906 English Edition"
Didn't you find answers older than that? These 1906 conceptions might be too modern to your mind.
The status of females and concept of equity in the society has changed dramatically during the last 100 years.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 22, 2010, 05:34:50 AM
Here's your answer:
http://www.theabsolute.net/ottow/sexcharh.html
(http://newscientist.ulb.ac.be/divers/curie.jpg)
Feminine success, an exception rather then the rule, is only really masculine success under a different guise. Elder George is of course speaking of the masculine principle in an absolute sense, which often times happens to apply to a rare subset of women as well, whom because of whatever biological mishap are more man then woman, as per Weininger's theory. As you can see, there are no holes in my argument.
Bravo, not only you are a racist, you are a sexist too? Wow, you are a piece of work, aren't you.
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 22, 2010, 06:42:19 AM
Bravo, not only you are a racist, you are a sexist too? Wow, you are a piece of work, aren't you.
Don't be too harsh with him, most people in the 19th century were racist and sexist too! :D
It is a shocking reality that many people have got a loooong way to the 21st century.
Quote from: Daverz on July 21, 2010, 03:43:29 PM
The abortion itself is irresponsible, or the pregnancy?
Or are you saying that the only responsible way to deal with a pregnancy is to bring it to term?
By the way, in those statistics we've been bandying about, there's still no breakdown of how often an unwanted pregnancy is the result of contraceptive failure.
Both.
No.
Not a very high percentage. And how would one determine if it is truly contraceptive failure, or a failure to use contraception properly? You'd think contraception would be easy enough to use, but that may not always be the case for everyone.
Quote from: Teresa on July 21, 2010, 04:19:03 PM
As a woman I resent the fact that we are viewed as baby-making machines. Indeed I look forward to the day when babies never grow in our bellies but are grown in laboratories from our removed egg and sperm cells.
IMHO since men cannot bear children they should have NO opinion one way or the other on abortion, it is a woman's issue NOT a man's issue. Men are ONLY sperm donors and all the work of producing a viable human being is completely in the wombs of women. If would be different if Men could get pregnant but they cannot not!
Candidate for dumbest paragraphs yet posted on this forum.
Quote from: Teresa on July 21, 2010, 10:56:53 PM
In addition I would completely ban pornography and movies rated R and up, ALL the great movies I have seen have been rated G, PG and PG-13.
Will the real forum totalitarian please stand up?
Quote from: Teresa on July 22, 2010, 12:36:22 AM
Freedom is a fine balance, there is freedom to and freedom from.
Yes, and freedom is about freedom to. You've got it completely wrong.
Quote from: Teresa on July 21, 2010, 10:56:53 PM
I also voted to restrict the amount of filth our children are exposed to in the media. Indeed I would go further as children are mirrors of us. I would support a ban on all dirty words, graphic descriptions of violence, rape and murder from all forms of music. In addition I would completely ban pornography and movies rated R and up, ALL the great movies I have seen have been rated G, PG and PG-13.
However I am for monitored foreign aid that actually gets to the people in need, controlled immigration, gay marriage and a woman's right to choose.
Finally I agree with you our civil rights should not be violated to stop terrorism. I do not believe in giving up ANY of my freedoms to feel safer. Give me liberty or give me death.
Okay, any standard GOP member's head just imploded on reading that.
I am, btw, a sort of mainstream libertarian who wants no part of either the GOP or the Democrats; in my more reflective moments I tend to think we need to throw out the entire system and start over again.
Quote from: kishnevi on July 22, 2010, 08:08:15 AM
Okay, any standard GOP member's head just imploded on reading that.
I am, btw, a sort of mainstream libertarian who wants no part of either the GOP or the Democrats; in my more reflective moments I tend to think we need to throw out the entire system and start over again.
see, the part I disagree with libertarians is the fact that they worship laissez-faire capitalism to death. They believe in absolutely no regulation, no government involvement whatsoever. How in the world can anyone, after the 2008 financial collapse, still believe in such a thing? do they think that if we deregulated it all, everything will magically get better? Sorry, but that almost sound childish to me.
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 22, 2010, 10:35:45 AM
see, the part I disagree with libertarians is the fact that they worship laissez-faire capitalism to death. They believe in absolutely no regulation, no government involvement whatsoever. How in the world can anyone, after the 2008 financial collapse, still believe in such a thing? do they think that if we deregulated it all, everything will magically get better? Sorry, but that almost sound childish to me.
Except the 2008 financial collapse was caused in large part by government action, with Congress putting pressure on Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac to encourage more loans to the lower class demographic. This resulted in irresponsible lending practices since the mortgage brokers simply passed along the risk to FM/FM - which over leveraged them well beyond their capacity to deal with the potential losses.
Regarding deregulation in general, it is a profound reality that markets work best with as little as possible manipulation by outside agents (of which government is the largest) and as much information possible readily available. Most attempts to control the economy are futile since the variables at play are numerous and subtle, and the opportunity for unintended consequences much more likely than beneficial results so that the best and brightest within (and without) government reliably bring about financial crisis after crisis in the quest for economic stability.
Quote from: Franco on July 22, 2010, 10:49:30 AM
Except the 2008 financial collapse was caused in large part by government action, with Congress putting pressure on Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac to make more loans to the lower class demographic.
I am perfectly aware of who pressured Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac to lower the lending standards, the democrats. But, do you know who pressure these democratic senators to lower the lending standards? Want to take a guess? Wall street bond traders! Yep, those people who first came up with mortgae backed securities needs more crappy Mortgages to sell to their customers, so they lobbied the politicians hard to ease the lending standards. EVERYTHING, and remember everything, came from the Wall Street, the rich run this country, don't ever forget that.
Quote from: Franco on July 22, 2010, 10:49:30 AM
Regarding deregulation in general, it is a profound reality that markets work best with as little as possible manipulation by outside agents (of which government is the largest) and as much information possible readily available.
Your argument has been used countless times, as a talking point FOR deregulation. Well, let's construct a thought experiment. Let's peel off some of the government regulations we have right now, and let's see where we would end up:
1) It's a law that people who have insider information inside a company can't trade their stocks without disclosure to SEC first. Let's take that away. Suppose I own company XYZ, for which you are also a share holder. Your entire pension consisted of investment in this single stock. Well, I also happen to be a crook, I knew that my XYZ is nothing but a fraud. I faked my financial statements, reported high earnings(actual earning=0), but everything has been a sham. Knowing this (being the only one), i sold all my holding of the XYZ company and profited enormously, I fled the country to live on some remote island. Your life savings are decimated, XYZ stock goes to 0.
government? or no government? you decide
let's peel off more regulations, let's say publicly traded companies don't even have to disclose their financial statements to the public.
2) Say my company ABC, a legit publicly traded company. Is hemorrhaging money this whole year, but I am not obligated by law to disclose the actual profitability of my company. For my sake (I own shares in the company), i tell the people on the outside that the company is doing great, we are making more money than ever, come and invest in our stock, etc.... you also happen to be an investor, you hold x amount of ABC stocks. One day, knowing the company is rapidly falling off a cliff, i rapidly sell off all of my shares, the price of ABC tumbles to 0, the company files for bankruptcy, your pension is gone.
in a "free" system such as the one you suggest, how does an investor from the outside, e.g YOU, prevent something like this to happen? You tell me.
There's nothing wrong with mortgage backed securities - unless the majority of the underlying mortgages are loans to people who should never gotten one.
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 22, 2010, 10:57:31 AM
I am perfectly aware of who pressured Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac to lower the lending standards, the democrats. But, do you know who pressure these democratic senators to lower the lending standards? Want to take a guess? Wall street bond traders! Yep, those people who first came up with mortgae backed securties needs more crappy Mortgages to sell to their customers, so they lobbied the politicians hard to ease the lending standards. EVERYTHING, and remember everything, came from the Wall Street, the rich run this country, don't ever forget that.
Well that isn't wholly true. I mean when both of those organizations started getting power, it wasn't about the bond market, it was about 'fairness', and the fear of of banks being brought to task for their lending practices. It became a beast that fed upon itself.
Quote from: Franco on July 22, 2010, 11:02:04 AM
There's nothing wrong with mortgage backed securities - unless the majority of the underlying mortgages are loans to people who should never gotten one.
And as an interesting sidenote to this whole affair, is this is not the first time the market crashed due to bad home loans. This was either the sixth or seventh time it happened. You'd think that the politicians would notice this, but the tendency towards populism tends to win out in the end.
Quote from: Franco on July 22, 2010, 11:02:04 AM
There's nothing wrong with mortgage backed securities - unless the majority of the underlying mortgages are loans to people who should never gotten one.
Of course not. But, the issue here is not MBS, or CDOs or CDSs. The issue here is deregulation, if everything were well regulated, (that includes lending standards) these financial instruments wouldn't have been so destructive/profitable.
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 22, 2010, 11:14:14 AM
Of course not. But, the issue here is not MBS, or CDOs or CDSs. The issue here is deregulation, if everything were well regulated, (that includes lending standards) these financial instruments wouldn't have been so destructive/profitable.
Well there were regulations back then, they simply weren't enforced, for a variety of reasons, the chief being government pressure on the bank followed by the incentive for untold profits.
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 22, 2010, 11:14:14 AM
Of course not. But, the issue here is not MBS, or CDOs or CDSs. The issue here is deregulation, if everything were well regulated, (that includes lending standards) these financial instruments wouldn't have been so destructive/profitable.
The lending industry is one of the most regulated, but if lenders are told to produce loans to low income people by government regulators, they are encouraged to let people claiming incomes they cannot document buy homes they cannot afford and write the loans anyway.
This crisis was not because of under-regulation, but in typical fashion, government causes a cirisis then positions itself as the necessary savior through yet more government action.
Quote from: Philoctetes on July 22, 2010, 11:15:15 AM
Well there were regulations back then, they simply weren't enforced, for a variety of reasons, the chief being government pressure on the bank followed by the incentive for untold profits.
Yes. and I can understand Franco's frustration with Government's involvement in regulation. I know how inept SEC is at regulating the financial industry. You don't have to go far, just look at the entire Madoff affair. It doesn't take an expert to figure out how ineffective SEC is at regulating the Wall Street. The more pressing issue is not really political, but social. The incentive system is all rigged in Wall Steet's favor. If I work for the regulators, I only get paid this much. But, if I help out turning a blind eye to Goldman Sachs, i might get a job offer there later. This is why SEC fired Gary Aguirre, it's disgraceful.
At the same time, we shouldn't buy into right wing propaganda, and just "deregulate it all". If you do that, they have won.
Quote from: Franco on July 22, 2010, 11:19:54 AM
The lending industry is one of the most regulated, but if lenders are told to produce loans to low income people by government regulators, they are encouraged to let people claiming incomes they cannot document buy homes they cannot afford and write the loans anyway.
This crisis was not because of under-regulation, but in typical fashion, government causes a cirisis then positions itself as the necessary savior through yet more government action.
Well I don't think I agree with your conclusion. The government did start out with good intentions, modeled after the 'new deal', and they have to act withing the bounds of the public sphere. And the people simply did not see the bubble, they simply saw the house market expanding, living that 'American dream'. I mean, for me, the main lesson is that one should not act out of a populist attitude, but rather be concerned with the overall good of the economy, but of course this would most likely lead to them not being reelected, and hence the cycle.
Quote from: Franco on July 22, 2010, 11:19:54 AM
The lending industry is one of the most regulated, but if lenders are told to produce loans to low income people by government regulators, they are encouraged to let people claiming incomes they cannot document buy homes they cannot afford and write the loans anyway.
This crisis was not because of under-regulation, but in typical fashion, government causes a cirisis then positions itself as the necessary savior through yet more government action.
See, that's too simple. The reality is not that simple. The people who are selling subprime mortages obviously have enormous financial incentives to do so. I mean, why don't they sell people cheap housing? why just cheap loans? Again, everything came from the people who makes the most money at that time. Bond traders in those investment banks. They WANTED people to buy things they couldn't afford. So, they can package those thing up as financial products and profit from it.
let me quote Steve Eisman:
..."What-the entire American population woke up one morning and said, 'Yeah, I'm going to lie on my loan application'? yeah, people lied. They lied because they were told to lie."
Quote from: Philoctetes on July 22, 2010, 11:25:16 AM
Well I don't think I agree with your conclusion. The government did start out with good intentions, modeled after the 'new deal', and they have to act withing the bounds of the public sphere. And the people simply did not see the bubble, they simply saw the house market expanding, living that 'American dream'. I mean, for me, the main lesson is that one should not act out of a populist attitude, but rather be concerned with the overall good of the economy, but of course this would most likely lead to them not being reelected, and hence the cycle.
But, I don't think we should just blame everything on the "bubble". There is a property bubble in China right now, and what is their government doing? Aggressively implementing lending restrictions, cracking down on speculation, increasing reserve ratio at banks, etc... Our government, yes, the one that was bought and paid for by the rich, ignore everything. Greenspan, who I believe would agree 100% with Franco, believed in deregulation, he was ultimately responsible for the bubble. Not the poor people who didn't understand their loan agreements.
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 22, 2010, 11:31:38 AM
But, I don't think we should just blame everything on the "bubble". There is a property bubble in China right now, and what is their government doing? Aggressively implementing lending restrictions, cracking down on speculation, increasing reserve ratio at banks, etc... Our government, yes, the one that was bought and paid for by the rich, ignore everything. Greenspan, who I believe would agree 100% with Franco, believed in deregulation, he was ultimately responsible for the bubble. Not all those poor people who didn't understand their loan agreements.
Well Greenspan is an assclown.
Well China I think is a very different situation from ours. I mean their GDP is insane, and their economy is more stable, seemingly. I've not really looked into their situation in depth.
Unfortunately the idea of little regulation is long past. We have allowed government interventions for so long, over 100 years, in the market that now there is no turning back, and yes, we are stuck now with government moving the economy like a pinball careening from bubble to bust.
If one were so inclined he could read the history of government intervention in the market in the two decades before the "Great Depression" and see how banking laws and regulations set the table for the massive numbers of bank failures. Which then led to more government intervention with the New Deal (which btw did not solve unemployment, WWII did that) - then the Great Society - and so on.
Sadly, that train has long left the station.
Quote from: Franco on July 22, 2010, 11:38:13 AM
Unfortunately the idea of little regulation is long past. We have allowed government interventions for so long, over 100 years, in the market that now there is no turning back, and yes, we are stuck now with government moving the economy like a pinball careening from bubble to bust.
If one were so inclined he could read the history of government intervention in the market in the two decades before the "Great Depression" and see how banking laws and regulations set the table for the massive numbers of bank failures. Which then led to more government intervention with the New Deal (which btw did not solve unemployment, WWII did that) - then the Great Society - and so on.
Sadly, that train has long left the station.
give me one example of any country in the world. Whose economy is robust right now because of a lack of regulation, go.
Quote from: Franco on July 22, 2010, 11:19:54 AM
The lending industry is one of the most regulated, but if lenders are told to produce loans to low income people by government regulators, they are encouraged to let people claiming incomes they cannot document buy homes they cannot afford and write the loans anyway.
So the banks were
forced to lend money to people they knew could not pay back the loans? Riiiight...
Quote from: Daverz on July 22, 2010, 12:14:57 PM
So the banks were forced to lend money to people they knew could not pay back the loans? Riiiight...
Exactly, believe or not, there were strong demand (from institutional investors, hedge funds, etc...) on MBS and later CDOs. But, there was only a fixed number of mortgages. Guys like Lewis Ranieri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Ranieri) made a killing buying and selling mortgage backed bonds, so of course, when existing mortgages ran out, there was a huge financial incentive for him to lobby the government to pass laws to create more shitty mortgages for him to trade and profit from.
Quote from: Daverz on July 22, 2010, 12:14:57 PM
So the banks were forced to lend money to people they knew could not pay back the loans? Riiiight...
Well forced is a strong term, coerced is a better one. Though I explained this in part in an earlier post.
Quote from: Teresa on July 21, 2010, 10:56:53 PM
I do not believe in giving up ANY of my freedoms to feel safer. Give me liberty or give me death.
Well; which is it to be?
NB you have already given up lots of your freedoms. Let us know when the hemlock goes on to brew.
Mike
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 22, 2010, 10:57:31 AM
I am perfectly aware of who pressured Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac to lower the lending standards, the democrats. But, do you know who pressure these democratic senators to lower the lending standards? Want to take a guess? Wall street bond traders! Yep, those people who first came up with mortgae backed securities needs more crappy Mortgages to sell to their customers, so they lobbied the politicians hard to ease the lending standards. EVERYTHING, and remember everything, came from the Wall Street, the rich run this country, don't ever forget that.
Your argument has been used countless times, as a talking point FOR deregulation. Well, let's construct a thought experiment. Let's peel off some of the government regulations we have right now, and let's see where we would end up:
1) It's a law that people who have insider information inside a company can't trade their stocks without disclosure to SEC first. Let's take that away. Suppose I own company XYZ, for which you are also a share holder. Your entire pension consisted of investment in this single stock. Well, I also happen to be a crook, I knew that my XYZ is nothing but a fraud. I faked my financial statements, reported high earnings(actual earning=0), but everything has been a sham. Knowing this (being the only one), i sold all my holding of the XYZ company and profited enormously, I fled the country to live on some remote island. Your life savings are decimated, XYZ stock goes to 0.
government? or no government? you decide
let's peel off more regulations, let's say publicly traded companies don't even have to disclose their financial statements to the public.
2) Say my company ABC, a legit publicly traded company. Is hemorrhaging money this whole year, but I am not obligated by law to disclose the actual profitability of my company. For my sake (I own shares in the company), i tell the people on the outside that the company is doing great, we are making more money than ever, come and invest in our stock, etc.... you also happen to be an investor, you hold x amount of ABC stocks. One day, knowing the company is rapidly falling off a cliff, i rapidly sell off all of my shares, the price of ABC tumbles to 0, the company files for bankruptcy, your pension is gone.
in a "free" system such as the one you suggest, how does an investor from the outside, e.g YOU, prevent something like this to happen? You tell me.
Well, first off, the investor would follow one of the prime rules of investment: diversify. Don't out all one's eggs in the same basket. If you invest in ten companies, one may go bust and you lose one tenth of your money. But you'll keep nine tenths of the rest.
And do his own research, don't trust the company's propaganda.
In other words, if you are foolish enough to trust all your money to one company, too bad. Your folly does not require me to come help you. (Of course, there would be no rule to say that I shouldn't help you--if I choose to do so.)
The same sort of view informs the libertarian attitude on the "War on Drugs". First, it's battling human nature. Second, anyone who wants to should be free to use drugs. If they want to ruin their lives, or are foolish enough to risk ruining their lives, that's their choice, and it must be allowed. But, on the other hand, there should be no expectation that because they have ruined their lives, I should help them--no welfare. Again, it must be my choice whether or not their situation (or the situation of spouses and children dependent on them) warrants me helping them as an individual.
But notice that your examples would all involve fraud by the company management, meaning the busted stockholders could sue them for their losses or they could be criminally prosecuted, depending on the exact circumstances. This without any intervention from government regulation.
Regulation works only if there would be an iron wall by which regulators and regulatees could be divided forever. But unfortunately the pool of potential regulators is also the same as the people work in the business that is regulated. No one else has the requisite knowledge that is needed if regulation is to have any chance of working.
Instead what you have is a nexus of business and regulators--FDA and Big Pharma, for instance, operating hand in hand, usually to the benefit of Big Pharma.
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 22, 2010, 05:55:41 AM
Your "Progressive" agenda is nothing but an effort to force your wacky religion on EVERYONE.
I have no agenda, I have deeply held progressive ideas that I believe will make society better with all of my heart. And since I believe in FULL DEMOCRACY, then improving society has to be voted in by a majority of the people. As Mick Jagger said "
You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes you might find you get what you need" If one gives just because of a few obsticals one is NOT very dedicated to their beliefs
QuoteThis may be the most hilariously ironic statement I've seen all year!
Did you watch Josquin des Prez's YouTube? it was the goofiest, sexist and most anti-woman diatribe I have every watched, it proves to everyone that he gets his goofy ideas unintelligent people.
QuoteHer thread on "Progressives" already made quite clear that she supports totalitarianism as long as it's justified by pretty rhetoric.
This is a bald face lie, as it does not. You need to learn how to read. I am for complete democracy (one person, one vote) with no corrupting influences of corporations.
All of my political positions are pro-people, pro-decency and pro-freedom. Universal Social Security, Guaranteed right to a job, Living Wages, Universal Health Care, Affordable Housing, etc.
Platform of the Greens/Green Party USA (http://www.greenparty.org/Platform.php)
Here is a chart showing The Real Difference (http://www.therealdifference.org/issues2.html) between Democrats, Republicans and the Green Party.
Quote(bet she loved "the Workers' Paradise").
You would loose that bet, for one thing, the Soviet Union was never a Worker's Paradise, as I have proven before it was
STATE CAPITALISM, they just exchanged one set of exploiters (the Tzars) for another. See "The Origin of Russian Communism (FIU, 1960, 1948, 1937), p. 128. CAPITALISM - SOVIET UNION; EXPLOITATION; SOVIET UNION - STATE CAPITALISM 20021015" Here is a quote:
"Soviet Russia is a country of state capitalism which is capable of exploitation no less than private capitalism."Indeed from a historical perspective the only places that had real communism were the short-lived
Paris Commune and the hippy communes in
Arizona. The Soviet Union, China, North Korea and Cuba are all frauds, using communist promises as a ruse to exploit citizens. When citizens of the Soviet Union complained that this is not what was promised, they replied it would not work until the whole world was communist. BULL-CRAP, it was a ruse to instill a totalitarian government and enslave it's people pure and simple. Evil leaders do this all the time, such as the capitalists revolutions in South American which brought awful totalitarian regimes. That is why maintaining democracy is so important. :)
Quote from: knight on July 22, 2010, 12:54:43 PM
Well; which is it to be?
NB you have already given up lots of your freedoms. Let us know when the hemlock goes on to brew.
Mike
I have NEVER voted to give up any of our freedoms. Some were taken away by the misnamed "
Patriot Act" which every American patriot was against. The Government is using terrorism as an excuse to take away more and more of our freedoms.
Guess I need to keep that hemlock handy.
Quote from: Teresa on July 22, 2010, 01:29:19 PM
All of my political positions are pro-people, pro-decency and pro-freedom. Universal Social Security, Guaranteed right to job, Living Wages, Universal Health Care, Affordable Housing, etc.
Platform of the Greens/Green Party USA (http://www.greenparty.org/Platform.php)
Teresa--for all those goodies, someone has to pay for them. So who pays for them?
And who decides which job is guaranteed to you? Suppose a total incompetent is hired? Are you just stuck with him forever?
And since those people will have no choice except to pay for them, or take the job offered them, or hire the person assigned to them, then they have lost their freedom, haven't they? If the government can tell me how to run my business or do my job or decide for me which societal goals (I'd pick universal health care and education as the most important ones myself, but other people can and do differ) are the most important, then how am I free?
Your ideals are nice and compassionate, and in the abstract I agree with them--probably everyone here would agree with them to some degree--but to put them in practice as government policy is the reverse of freedom.
Quote from: 71 dB on July 22, 2010, 03:17:44 AM
I took the test after all but I repeat: these tests do oversimplify. For example: I answered "neutral" for the question about minimum wages. It depends on whether there is a Basic Income system or not.
Without Basic Income I want minimum wages up
With Basic Income I want minimum wages kept as they are or down a little bit.
Just one example how things are linked together, something that these gallups tend to ignore.
Economic score: -5.16
Social score: -5.22
Your score pegs you as economically leftist and socially libertarian.
Economic leftists mostly support strict economic controls and programs to assure that the poor are elevated to a higher position in society.
Social libertarians generally believe that the government should not judge morality, and are generally against the illegalization of things that do not directly affect other people in a negative way. Many strong social libertarians may also be social progressives, favoring legislation to correct what they see as socially backwards governmental regulation, although some simply wish for the government to make little judgment on social matters.
We were not as close as I thought we would be.
My economic score was
-8.65 yours
-5.16My social score was
-6.09 yours
-5.22You were pegged as
economically leftist I was pegged as
economically socialistWe were both pegged as
socially libertarian.
Quote from: kishnevi on July 22, 2010, 01:59:43 PM
Teresa--for all those goodies, someone has to pay for them. So who pays for them?
And who decides which job is guaranteed to you? Suppose a total incompetent is hired? Are you just stuck with him forever?
And since those people will have no choice except to pay for them, or take the job offered them, or hire the person assigned to them, then they have lost their freedom, haven't they? If the government can tell me how to run my business or do my job or decide for me which societal goals (I'd pick universal health care and education as the most important ones myself, but other people can and do differ) are the most important, then how am I free?
Your ideals are nice and compassionate, and in the abstract I agree with them--probably everyone here would agree with them to some degree--but to put them in practice as government policy is the reverse of freedom.
Logic has to be used in matching a person to a job. First the if job seeker knows what kind of job they want that should be what should be offered. If the job seeker does not know there are aptitude and job interest tests they can take to determine what job is their perfect match.
If a person is incompetent, they either need training or were chosen for a job incompatible to then. At any rate they should NEVER be thrown out on the street. Either they should be put in the right job for them or given the required training.
I would rather pay to guarantee basic human rights of which a job is perhaps the most basic of all, than the corporate welfare we pay for now. And I am 100% sure most Americans agree.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a23)
Article 23.
- Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
- Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
- Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
- Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Having all BASIC human rights meet is the CORNERSTONE of freedom!
Quote from: Teresa on July 22, 2010, 02:21:27 PM
Logic has to be used in matching a person to a job. First the if job seeker knows what kind of job they want that should be what should be offered.
I love that logic - give them what they want; then everybody's happy. ::)
I think I will be a brain surgeon for a change. I have not ever done it, but I fancy trying it.
I am thinking of specialising in lobotomies. I know, I know, too late for some here you will claim; but a second lobotomy can work wonders.
Mike
Quote from: Todd on July 22, 2010, 07:04:47 AM
Candidate for dumbest paragraphs yet posted on this forum.
Oh contraire, one of the most intelligent posts yet! Well written and explains my feelings to a tee, I am very proud to have authored it!
As a woman I resent the fact that we are viewed as baby-making machines. Indeed I look forward to the day when babies never grow in our bellies but are grown in laboratories from our removed egg and sperm cells.
IMHO since men cannot bear children they should have NO opinion one way or the other on abortion, it is a woman's issue NOT a man's issue. Men are ONLY sperm donors and all the work of producing a viable human being is completely in the wombs of women. If would be different if Men could get pregnant but they cannot not!We can already combine egg and sperm in a petri dish, all is needed is an artificial uterus to grow a human being outside of the body.
Will artificial wombs mean the end of pregnancy? (http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20040225-9999-mz1c25womb.html)
QuoteWill the real forum totalitarian please stand up?
Well you must look somewhere else, as it is not me. I believe in direct democracy, one person one vote with not corporate involvement.
QuoteYes, and freedom is about freedom to. You've got it completely wrong.
No you only have one half of the equation. It is just as much about freedom
from as it is freedom
to. For example you DO NOT have freedom to yell
FIRE in a crowded theater.
Quote from: Teresa on July 22, 2010, 02:41:05 PM
I am very proud to have authored it!
I figured as much. That's all I need to know.
@ Teresa
Actually, you do have the freedom to yell fire at the movies.
Quote from: knight on July 22, 2010, 02:36:41 PMI think I will be a brain surgeon for a change.
Good call. I'm torn between being a rock star and a brothel quality control inspector. How could I get such gigs? (Oh, wait, I think both are filthy.)
Quote from: Teresa on July 22, 2010, 02:41:05 PM
As a woman I resent the fact that we are viewed as baby-making machines. Indeed I look forward to the day when babies never grow in our bellies but are grown in laboratories from our removed egg and sperm cells.
IMHO since men cannot bear children they should have NO opinion one way or the other on abortion, it is a woman's issue NOT a man's issue. Men are ONLY sperm donors and all the work of producing a viable human being is completely in the wombs of women. If would be different if Men could get pregnant but they cannot not!
Todd's judgement is right. I slid it by first time round; but as before, when you repeat an idiocy, I find it difficult to leave off.
So, the father has no rights to contribute to any decision over his unborn child. Disenfranchised at a stroke. More of your totalitarianism.
Freedom is what Teresa states it is at any given time.
But, if you don't like that folks, wait a short time, the parameters of the freedom you are permitted will alter tomorrow, or possibly sooner, whenever she returns from the planet she habitually lives on.
Did you ever meet Sean?
Mike
Quote from: knight on July 22, 2010, 02:48:21 PM
Did you ever meet Sean?
Imagine the possibilities!
Life created in a testube may have attractions after all.
Mike
Quote from: Philoctetes on July 22, 2010, 02:44:52 PM
@ Teresa
Actually, you do have the freedom to yell fire at the movies.
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."Oliver Wendell Holmes
You still have the freedom to shout it; as long as you are prepared for the consequences.
Mike
Quote from: knight on July 22, 2010, 02:53:06 PM
You still have the freedom to shout it; as long as you are prepared for the consequences.
Mike
:-[ OK if you are prepared to go to jail. But somehow that doesn't sound like freedom to me. :)
Are we only free, ideologically, to do things if there are no consequences?
Mike
Quote from: knight on July 22, 2010, 03:00:23 PM
Are we only free, ideologically, to do things if there are no consequences?
I think what Teresa has discovered, bless her heart, is that you are free to do anything you like as long as you are not able to understand or foresee the consequences.
And you can see how long my resolution lasted. :'(
Quote from: knight on July 22, 2010, 02:48:21 PM
So, the father has no rights to contribute to any decision over his unborn child. Disenfranchised at a stroke. More of your totalitarianism.
No men have NO right to dictate the terms of any pregnancy, it is totally up to the Mother. Oh, they can discuss and contribute their opinion but the final decision is made by the Mother who is carrying the baby. When men can have babies (I guarantee you don't want to) then and ONLY then do they have any ultimate say in the matter.
QuoteFreedom is what Teresa states it is at any given time.
I believe in freedom and my definition never changes.
QuoteDid you ever meet Sean?
Mike
Sean who?
Quote from: Teresa on July 22, 2010, 03:05:24 PM
No men have NO right to dictate the terms of any pregnancy, it is totally up to the Mother. Oh, they can discuss and contribute their opinion but the final decision is made by the Mother who is carrying the baby. When men can have babies (I guarantee you don't want to) then and ONLY then do they have any ultimate say in the matter.
Another candidate for dumbest paragraph ever posted. Teresa is a veritable fountain of dumb writing.
Quote from: Teresa on July 22, 2010, 03:05:24 PM
No men have NO right to dictate the terms of any pregnancy, it is totally up to the Mother. Oh, they can discuss and contribute their opinion but the final decision is made by the Mother who is carrying the baby. When men can have babies (I guarantee you don't want to) then and ONLY then do they have any ultimate say in the matter.
Not that I would anticipate logical conclusions; but if the father has no rights until it is born; why must he have obligations after the birth?
Mike
Quote from: Scarpia on July 22, 2010, 03:04:18 PM
And you can see how long my resolution lasted. :'(
How long does it take to produce a hard boiled egg?
Mike
Quote from: Scarpia on July 22, 2010, 03:04:18 PM
And you can see how long my resolution lasted. :'(
I also find it impossible to stay out the Diner, where all the important issues are harmoniously resolved.
You must give me the address of that Diner.
Mike
Quote from: Todd on July 22, 2010, 03:07:29 PM
Another candidate for dumbest paragraph ever posted. Teresa is a veritable fountain of dumb writing.
What weird perceptions you have! :o As that was yet another
brilliantly intelligent post I wrote.
As always my writing is profound and some of the most logical which is much needed with this turning into an anti-people thread. With men having the gall to try to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies, denying gays the legal benefits of marriage, and outright supporting the Porn industry.
BTW are you a woman hater Todd? >:(
Quote from: Todd on July 22, 2010, 03:07:29 PMAnother candidate for dumbest paragraph ever posted. Teresa is a veritable fountain of dumb writing.
Aye. And the competition is steep, not least among her own contributions. By the way--not that you need the affirmation, since the reasonableness of your statements is self-evident--but you are absolutely correct and commendably clear and direct in your statements here regarding abortion. Your common sense on that matter is a beacon of sanity in this thread. Thank you.
Quote from: knight on July 22, 2010, 03:18:16 PM
Not that I would anticipate logical conclusions; but if the father has no rights until it is born; why must he have obligations after the birth?
Mike
Very simple! ::) Once outside of the woman's body the baby is no longer
TOTALLY dependent on it's mother. Once it is born it becomes a human being dependent on both of it's parents. This is not rocket science, pure simple biological logic.
Since it takes a sperm and an egg to make a baby, both parents have parental obligations after it's birth. DUH! ::)
Quote from: Teresa on July 22, 2010, 05:55:12 PM
Very simple! ::) Once outside of the woman's body the baby is no longer TOTALLY dependent on it's mother. Once it is born it becomes a human being dependent on both of it's parents. This is not rocket science, pure simple biological logic.
Since it takes a sperm and an egg to make a baby, both parents have parental obligations after it's birth. DUH! ::)
I have to take a breath and remind myself that this person is not capable of following any rational argument.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 22, 2010, 06:08:35 PM
I have to take a breath and remind myself that this person is not capable of following any rational argument.
>:( :o ??? ::)
WHAT A BLATANT INSULT AND BALD-FACE LIE. Why do you do this?
All of my writing is HIGHLY RATIONAL and WELL THOUGHT-OUT. Every single point and counterpoint is spot on.
However insults will not do, I DEMAND AN APOLOGY
NOW!Since you are lacking an understanding on how women's bodies work during pregnancy. I will give you further
PROOF POSITIVE that a baby's well being is
TOTALLY dependent on its mother. During pregnancy men can drink, smoke, do drugs and it will have no ill effect on the baby as long they do not do it around the woman. However if the woman drinks, smokes or does drugs during her pregnancy it will likely damage the to be born infant's health, sometimes drastically.
Sometimes I think men have a understanding disability! >:( >:(
Quote from: Bulldog on July 22, 2010, 03:33:09 PM
I also find it impossible to stay out the Diner, where all the important issues are harmoniously resolved.
Interestingly, the first thing I did when I got home was go read this thread. I don't know even know why, because I'm not even interested in any of the topics.
Quote from: Greg on July 22, 2010, 06:28:06 PM
Interestingly, the first thing I did when I got home was go read this thread. I don't know even know why, because I'm not even interested in any of the topics.
It is just a perpetual train wreck from which it is impossible to look away.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 22, 2010, 06:39:42 PM
It is just a perpetual train wreck from which it is impossible to look away.
No matter how far I run away, it's like the train tracks seem to wrap around in front of me. Help, mama! :'(
Quote from: Greg on July 22, 2010, 06:41:47 PM
No matter how far I run away, it's like the train tracks seem to wrap around in front of me. Help, mama! :'(
Hence, why the diner is so fantastic.
Quote from: knight on July 22, 2010, 02:53:06 PM
You still have the freedom to shout it; as long as you are prepared for the consequences.
Mike
No need to be so obvious. Clearly, that ruins the fun.
Quote from: knight on July 22, 2010, 02:53:06 PM
You still have the freedom to shout it; as long as you are prepared for the consequences.
Yes, that's the rub. Our Teresa has the freedom to say whatever she pleases. If anyone dares point out that she is talking nonsense, that is a denial of her freedom. She has the freedom to say what she pleases and have it respected. On the the other hand, our freedom to point out nonsense when we see it makes no impression on her. ::)
Quote from: Scarpia on July 22, 2010, 07:01:30 PM
Yes, that's the rub. Our Teresa has the freedom to say whatever she pleases. If anyone dares point out that she is talking nonsense, that is a denial of her freedom. She has the freedom to say what she pleases and have it respected. On the the other hand, our freedom to point out nonsense when we see it makes no impression on her. ::)
>:D
Quote from: Scarpia on July 22, 2010, 07:01:30 PM
Yes, that's the rub. Our Teresa has the freedom to say whatever she pleases. If anyone dares point out that she is talking nonsense, that is a denial of her freedom. She has the freedom to say what she pleases and have it respected. On the the other hand, our freedom to point out nonsense when we see it makes no impression on her. ::)
OK I am daring you to show me one single statement I have ever made that is nonsense! Just one! You will not find it as I have NEVER spouted nonsense in my entire life, never! I spend a lot of time on my posts and I do my research. I do not believe in nonsense! Why do you make these things up? What is your problem? >:(
nonsense |ˈnänˌsens|noun
1 spoken or written words that have no meaning or make no sense : he was talking absolute nonsense.
• [as exclam. ] used to show strong disagreement : "Nonsense! No one can do that."
• [as adj. ] denoting verse or other writing intended to be amusing by virtue of its absurd or whimsical language : nonsense poetry.
2 foolish or unacceptable behavior : put a stop to that nonsense, will you?
• something that one disagrees with or disapproves of : the idea that the gut is full of toxins that have to be flushed away is dismissed as nonsense by gastroenterologists.
Quote from: Teresa on July 22, 2010, 04:24:34 PM
What weird perceptions you have! :o As that was yet another brilliantly intelligent post I wrote.
BTW are you a woman hater Todd?
It is now possible to come to one of only two conclusions about Teresa:
1.) She (or he) is a prankster.
2.) She (or he) is a fruitcake.
Praising "her" own mediocrity (at best) as "brilliantly intelligent" and implicitly hurling the mighty misogynist label, because someone has the temerity to point out how dumb her posts are, in one post, leads to those two options. Perhaps a poll is in order.
Quote from: Teresa on July 22, 2010, 07:13:30 PM
OK I am daring you to show me one single statement I have ever made that is nonsense! Just one!
How about when you claimed there was no dissonance in Rachmaninoff, and inspection of the score indicated there is an obvious dissonance in the first note that the piano plays in his most popular work?
Quote from: Scarpia on July 22, 2010, 07:17:12 PM
How about when you claimed there was no dissonance in Rachmaninoff, and inspection of the score indicated there is an obvious dissonance in the first note that the piano plays in his most popular work?
That was not nonsense but an
error, I have NEVER said I was perfect. And if you actually listen to the piece with your own ears you will not hear the dissonance, Rachmaninoff was very clever. I firmly stand by my statement that Rachmaninoff is a tonal composer.
I gave you the definition of nonsense so you would know what to look for.
Quote from: Todd on July 22, 2010, 07:16:31 PM
It is now possible to come to one of only two conclusions about Teresa:
1.) She is a prankster.
2.) She is a fruitcake.
Praising "her" own mediocrity (at best) as "brilliantly intelligent" and implicitly hurling the mighty misogynist label, because someone has the temerity to point out how dumb her posts are, in one post, leads to those two options. Perhaps a poll is in order.
You are clearly a woman hater or you would not be attacking me for stating the obvious, when you clearly do not have the intelligence to understand.
All that you attacked me for is 100% true! Why are you showing your stupidity by denying the truth and attacking some of the best written posts to ever appear on the internet?
Where are the factual errors in these posts?
"As a woman I resent the fact that we are viewed as baby-making machines. Indeed I look forward to the day when babies never grow in our bellies but are grown in laboratories from our removed egg and sperm cells.
IMHO since men cannot bear children they should have NO opinion one way or the other on abortion, it is a woman's issue NOT a man's issue. Men are ONLY sperm donors and all the work of producing a viable human being is completely in the wombs of women. If would be different if Men could get pregnant but they cannot not!"
"We can already combine egg and sperm in a petri dish, all is needed is an artificial uterus to grow a human being outside of the body." Will artificial wombs mean the end of pregnancy? (http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20040225-9999-mz1c25womb.html)
"No men have NO right to dictate the terms of any pregnancy, it is totally up to the Mother. Oh, they can discuss and contribute their opinion but the final decision is made by the Mother who is carrying the baby. When men can have babies (I guarantee you don't want to) then and ONLY then do they have any ultimate say in the matter."Seems you may need a biology course?
Perhaps it is you who is a prankster or a fruitcake based on your illogical answers and attacks. I am totally honest and speak 100% from the heart. Plus I research my facts! You owe me a big apology!
Quote from: Teresa on July 22, 2010, 07:21:35 PM
That was not nonsense but an error, I have NEVER said I was perfect. And if you actually listen to the piece with your own ears you will not hear the dissonance, Rachmaninoff was very clever. I firmly stand by my statement that Rachmaninoff is a tonal composer.
More nonsense. The inconsistency that you assume exists between music being tonal and music containing dissonance does not exist. No one on the planet earth would claim that the music of Rachmaninoff is not tonal, although anyone with any training in music would recognize that he makes liberal use of dissonance. I would be hard-pressed to find a sentence that you have typed into this web site that is not nonsense.
Quote from: Teresa on July 22, 2010, 07:34:24 PM
I am totally honest and speak 100% from the heart.
I have serious doubts.
Ridiculing your posts most certainly does not make me a woman hater. Aside from the fundamental logical problem in your assertion, no one here even knows for certain if you are in fact a woman. Just because you claim to be doesn't mean you are.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 22, 2010, 07:37:11 PM
More nonsense. The inconsistency that you assume exists between music being tonal and music containing dissonance does not exist. No one on the planet earth would claim that the music of Rachmaninoff is not tonal, although anyone with any training in music would recognize that he makes liberal use of dissonance. I would be hard-pressed to find a sentence that you have typed into this web site that is not nonsense.
You still didn't read the definition of nonsense, as this two is an
error. Since that time I have changed my wording to
ugly sounding hard-dissonance to show my disdain for ugly dissonance versus rather brief tonally sound dissonance, since some people seem to attack people for no reason at all. So the error was corrected in later posts.
error |ˈerər|noun
a mistake : spelling errors | an error of judgment. See note at mistake .
• the state or condition of being wrong in conduct or judgment : the money had been paid in error | the crash was caused by human error.
• Baseball a misplay by a fielder that allows a batter to reach base or a runner to advance.
• technical a measure of the estimated difference between the observed or calculated value of a quantity and its true value.
• Law a mistake of fact or of law in a court's opinion, judgment or order.
• Philately a postage stamp or item of postal stationery showing a major printing or perforation mistake.
Quote from: Todd on July 22, 2010, 07:42:49 PM
I have serious doubts.
Ridiculing your posts most certainly does not make me a woman hater. Aside from the fundamental logical problem in your assertion, no one here even knows for certain if you are in fact a woman. Just because you claim to be doesn't mean you are.
If you are NOT a woman hater then at the very least you are a troll. As you attacked the writer of well written posts that logically cannot be attacked because they are true, you evidently disagree with something in them, but you are keeping that to yourself.
Your behavior makes you look like a fool. You were better off being a woman hater. BTW I was a woman last time a looked.
You do not know how to win friends and influence people do you?
Quote from: Teresa on July 22, 2010, 07:53:15 PM
As you attacked the writer of well written posts that logically cannot be attacked because they are true, you evidently disagree with something in them, but you are keeping that to yourself.
This doesn't make any sense. Try again.
Quote from: Teresa on July 22, 2010, 06:27:20 PM
>:( :o ??? ::) WHAT A BLATANT INSULT AND BALD-FACE LIE. Why do you do this?
All of my writing is HIGHLY RATIONAL and WELL THOUGHT-OUT. Every single point and counterpoint is spot on.
However insults will not do, I DEMAND AN APOLOGY NOW!
Are you for real?
However rational and well thought-out you imagine your arguments to be, you give the impression of a raving loon. If you are serious about arguing for your frankly controversial opinions, you must take criticism in stride and not lose your temper. It does not help your case to indignantly proclaim the brilliant intelligence of your posts; you end up looking foolish and silly. Make your arguments, and if you are ridiculed that's tough, but it's incumbent upon you to rationally and calmly explain the logic behind your views, and not demand apologies for perceived insults.
And by the way, this is coming from someone who might be considered a "progressive", so I have no ideological axe to grind with you.
Quote from: Todd on July 22, 2010, 08:00:50 PM
This doesn't make any sense. Try again.
OK I'll try make this clear enough even for you to understand! If you disagree with someone's position or even their facts the civil way to do this to state what you disagree with and what your opinion is, not attack the person you disagree with for
NO REASON WHATSOEVER given. Do you not see how rude and anti-social this is? >:(
Quote from: Teresa on July 22, 2010, 08:08:26 PMOK I'll try make this clear enough even for you to understand! If you disagree with someone's position or even their facts the civil way to do this to state what you disagree with and what your opinion is, not attack the person you disagree with for NO REASON WHATSOEVER given. Do you not see how rude and anti-social this is?
Nope, you're still not making any sense. Try again.
Quote from: Todd on July 22, 2010, 08:10:15 PM
Nope, you're still not making any sense. Try again.
I can't make it any plainer, do you understand the English language at all?
Try again, this is super easy to understand!OK I'll try make this clear enough even for you to understand! If you disagree with someone's position or even their facts the civil way to do this to state what you disagree with and what your opinion is, not attack the person you disagree with for NO REASON WHATSOEVER given. Do you not see how rude and anti-social this is?
Quote from: Teresa on July 22, 2010, 08:15:56 PM
I can't make it any plainer, do you understand the English language at all?
Try again, this is super easy to understand!
OK I'll try make this clear enough even for you to understand! If you disagree with someone's position or even their facts the civil way to do this to state what you disagree with and what your opinion is, not attack the person you disagree with for NO REASON WHATSOEVER given. Do you not see how rude and anti-social this is?
Give it one more try. Maybe it will work the fourth time, because right now it's simply gibberish.
Quote from: Daidalos on July 22, 2010, 08:08:01 PM
Are you for real?
However rational and well thought-out you imagine your arguments to be, you give the impression of a raving loon. If you are serious about arguing for your frankly controversial opinions, you must take criticism in stride and not lose your temper. It does not help your case to indignantly proclaim the brilliant intelligence of your posts; you end up looking foolish and silly. Make your arguments, and if you are ridiculed that's tough, but it's incumbent upon you to rationally and calmly explain the logic behind your views, and not demand apologies for perceived insults.
And by the way, this is coming from someone who might be considered a "progressive", so I have no ideological axe to grind with you.
Yes I am for real, what a rather bizarre question to ask. Like you I am a progressive and a member of the Green Party and I firmly believe we can have a better world by doing the right things. There are the correct ideas the extreme right-wing does not like, and since they have NO logical counter-arguments, they think they can disprove what they do not like by attacking me. Personally I think that is very childish behavior on their part. You will notice that I don't attack back but try to explain my position with more clarity.
I would be very interested what action would make me appear to be a raving loon? As this is the very opposite of my intentions. If it is the way I have worded something, let me know what it is and I will try to revise it to make the meaning clearer.
The only one of my opinions that could be even considered controversial is the coming of artificial wombs eliminating pregnancy as we know it and I provided links. Personally I think this is the biggest blessing to women.
I am willing to take criticism for my views and even spend the time to further clarify them, but I draw the line at personal attacks. That is just NOT acceptable.
I am a writer and some of my best stuff has been in this thread in the last few days, if this thread keeps going I just might have enough to write a book. I am very proud of my posts in this thread, they are IMHO brilliantly intelligent! They draw all the issues of this thread together into perfect sense.
Quote from: Teresa on July 22, 2010, 08:33:23 PM
I am a writer and some of my best stuff has been in this thread in the last few days, if this thread keeps going I just might have enough to write a book. I am very proud of my posts in this thread, they are IMHO brilliantly intelligent! They draw all the issues of this thread together into perfect sense.
You should have quite while you were ahead.
Quote from: Philoctetes on July 22, 2010, 08:35:50 PMYou should have quite while you were ahead.
When was "she" ever ahead?
Quote from: Todd on July 22, 2010, 08:17:46 PM
Give it one more try. Maybe it will work the fourth time, because right now it's simply gibberish.
It is not gibberish but EXTREMELY CLEAR AND EASY TO UNDERSTAND the problem is in your understanding of English.
I am not here to
teach you the English language. Have your wife read it, or even one of your kids and maybe they can explain it to you.
Quote from: Todd on July 22, 2010, 08:37:55 PM
When was "she" ever ahead?
She got to confident in her trolling abilities.
Quote from: Todd on July 22, 2010, 08:37:55 PM
When was "she" ever ahead?
It least I have a clue and KNOW what I believe and can clearly articulate my positions. You evidently have trouble with the English language.
Quote from: Teresa on July 22, 2010, 08:38:18 PM
It is not gibberish but EXTREMELY CLEAR AND EASY TO UNDERSTAND the problem is in your understanding of English.
I am not here to teach you the English language. Have your wife read it, or even one of your kids and maybe they can explain it to you.
Nope, that's no better. Well, keep on trying, maybe one day you'll make sense.
Quote from: Philoctetes on July 22, 2010, 08:35:50 PM
You should have quite while you were ahead.
I am ahead, there is some fantastic writing in this thread that will be reused later. Nothing is better than giving a writer material. I guess I should say thanks to my attackers but I am still angry with their childish behavior.
Quote from: Todd on July 22, 2010, 08:40:17 PM
Nope, that's no better. Well, keep on trying, maybe one day you'll make sense.
I made
perfect sense, the trouble is on the receiving end, to clarify since you are playing dumb that would be your end. Save the post, maybe you will understand it when you grow up?
Quote from: Teresa on July 22, 2010, 08:42:19 PM
Nothing is better than giving a writer material.
I agree, your list of quotable quotes just grows and grows. I gather them like a squirrel gathers nuts.
I see you ascribe to the ancient Roman view that a baby is not a baby until it is outside of the womb. In your view that restricts the rights involved to those of the mother; as the child is dependent on it.
But if the mother is dependent on her partner to keep a roof over her head, or food coming in, or to pay for her medicine.....still that man has no rights over his child.
Of course, the frequent error here is the claim that it is the woman's body. There is an unborn child there too. It has rights; but not a strident voice in which they can be made clear.
Mike
Quote from: Teresa on July 22, 2010, 08:42:19 PM
I am ahead, there is some fantastic writing in this thread that will be reused later.
Have you considered a ban on bragging?
Quote from: Teresa on July 22, 2010, 02:06:16 PM
We were not as close as I thought we would be.
My economic score was -8.65 yours -5.16
My social score was -6.09 yours -5.22
You were pegged as economically leftist I was pegged as economically socialist
We were both pegged as socially libertarian.
I don't think our economical thoughts are that different if we both think in a "green way". It's all about how we weight things. Or is there a difference? Is The Green Party in USA a substitute of a real left-wing party? In Finland we do have "real" left wing parties, so The Greens don't have to fill that hole. For me to be Green doesn't mean to be a leftist. It means to be ahead of others. I want to take the best ideas from left and right for the best possible results.
Remember, these questions were for American people from an American point of view. I tried to translate my Finnish point of view to American point of view. For example, minimum wage isn't such an issue in Finland that it is in US.
Our real difference is in banning porn and violence, not in economical issues. Also, I am an atheist and against religion.
Quote from: 71 dB on July 23, 2010, 01:46:26 AM
I don't think our economical thoughts are that different if we both think in a "green way". It's all about how we weight things. Or is there a difference? Is The Green Party in USA a substitute of a real left-wing party? In Finland we do have "real" left wing parties, so The Greens don't have to fill that hole. For me to be Green doesn't mean to be a leftist. It means to be ahead of others. I want to take the best ideas from left and right for the best possible results.
Remember, these questions were for American people from an American point of view. I tried to translate my Finnish point of view to American point of view. For example, minimum wage isn't such an issue in Finland that it is in US.
Our real difference is in banning porn and violence, not in economical issues. Also, I am an atheist and against religion.
It is possible I clicked the box
"This is a critical issue to me" more often than you did. And yes I answered in the affirmative on the minimum wage. The Green Party is of the left, but the USA has many left-wing parties. However it is much beyond left, I call it "up" politically because it is the only party that takes into account mankind's relationship to the earth. Full political and economic rights for citizens with respect for the planet we live on.
From Platform of the Greens/Green Party USA (http://www.greenparty.org/Platform.php)
"The Greens carry forward the traditional values of the Left: freedom, equality, and solidarity. We want to create a truly democratic society without class exploitation or social domination. But Greens expand this notion of a classless, nonhierarchical society that is harmonized with itself to include an ecological society that is harmonized with nature as well."Here is the Green Party's stand on Nonviolence (http://www.greenparty.org/values.php)
"It is essential that we develop effective alternatives to our current patterns of violence at all levels, from the family and the streets, to nations and the world. We will work to demilitarize our society and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, without being naive about the intentions of other governments. We recognize the need for self-defense and the defense of others who are in helpless situations. We promote nonviolent methods to oppose practices and policies with which we disagree, and will guide our actions toward lasting personal, community and global peace."As you can see they offer no opinion on violence in movies, music and entertainment. My opinions on banning pornography and violence are my own based as how safer and saner American society was in the 1960's - 1970's before the Porn Industry got a stronghold.
I remember when there were no X-rated movies and R-rated movies were extremely rare, when there were no adult bookstores. Then Playboy came out, it was quite shocking however it was very, very mild compared to the adult magazines of today. Before Playboy, guys would look at the African topless ladies in National Geographic.
I remember when there was clean, beautiful and enjoyable music.
Most of the music I listen to is classic rock and instrumental Classical music. So much of modern music is sick in the extreme. With movies I have learned to avoid R rated movies, if they are not polluted with graphic sex then the violence is extreme and often very bloody. Most of my favorite movies are G or PG, although I do own some Science-Fiction movies that are PG-13.
Some say that violent movies help people work out their aggression so they do not do the violent acts themselves. However I believe the effect is just the opposite, that they actually give criminals ideas for their next crimes. That is why I believe they are unsafe for society. The same with sex movies, most sex criminals caught have a stash of pornography.
The Green Party does not have an official policy on Porn although they do support feminism, and most feminist are anti-porn as it objectifies a woman's body and turns us into sex objects.
The Green Party USA is open to all religious groups as well as agnostics and atheists, so I am sure it is the same as Finland's in this regard.
Join the war against violence.
Quote from: 71 dB on July 23, 2010, 01:46:26 AM
I don't think our economical thoughts are that different if we both think in a "green way". It's all about how we weight things. Or is there a difference? Is The Green Party in USA a substitute of a real left-wing party? In Finland we do have "real" left wing parties, so The Greens don't have to fill that hole. For me to be Green doesn't mean to be a leftist. It means to be ahead of others. I want to take the best ideas from left and right for the best possible results.
Remember, these questions were for American people from an American point of view. I tried to translate my Finnish point of view to American point of view. For example, minimum wage isn't such an issue in Finland that it is in US.
Our real difference is in banning porn and violence, not in economical issues. Also, I am an atheist and against religion.
Nah, just admit it, Poju; you 2 were made for each other. I've realized it since Teresa first came out of the closet. Sure, little differences in minor details (god:no god for example), but nothing that a good healthy couple of hours in the sauna won't take care of. Let us know how that works out, eh? :)
8)
Quote from: Teresa on July 22, 2010, 02:06:16 PM
We were not as close as I thought we would be.
My economic score was -8.65 yours -5.16
My social score was -6.09 yours -5.22
You were pegged as economically leftist I was pegged as economically socialist
We were both pegged as socially libertarian.
And jolly old "Papa" Joe Stalin scored -7.24, -5.66 ... just slightly to the right of Teresa. Everyone will be happy and gay in Teresa's workers' paradise, the tooth fairy will hand out treats every night, the Easter bunny comes every week, and with Santa Claus as the Commissar, even "Re-Education" camps will be fun!
Quote from: Teresa on July 22, 2010, 08:38:18 PM
It is not gibberish but EXTREMELY CLEAR AND EASY TO UNDERSTAND the problem is in your understanding of English.
I am not here to teach you the English language. Have your wife read it, or even one of your kids and maybe they can explain it to you.
You might try learning the proper use of the semicolon.
Quote from: Teresa on July 23, 2010, 02:54:47 AM
From Platform of the Greens/Green Party USA (http://www.greenparty.org/Platform.php)
"The Greens carry forward the traditional values of the Left: freedom, equality, and solidarity. We want to create a truly democratic society without class exploitation or social domination. But Greens expand this notion of a classless, nonhierarchical society that is harmonized with itself to include an ecological society that is harmonized with nature as well."
Here is the Green Party's stand on Nonviolence (http://www.greenparty.org/values.php)
"It is essential that we develop effective alternatives to our current patterns of violence at all levels, from the family and the streets, to nations and the world. We will work to demilitarize our society and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, without being naive about the intentions of other governments. We recognize the need for self-defense and the defense of others who are in helpless situations. We promote nonviolent methods to oppose practices and policies with which we disagree, and will guide our actions toward lasting personal, community and global peace." ¨
That's an almost perfect description of what I believe in myself. ;)
QuoteAs you can see they offer no opinion on violence in movies, music and entertainment.
I don't think that the problem is so much that there's violence in movies, music and entertainment. The arts have always reflected, and are even supposed to reflect what's going on in society. I think where we have gone overboard recently though is the GLORYFICATION of violence. Popular music in the 60's and 70's dealt with violence and wars and what have you, but peace and love was usually presented as the answer. Today violence is often presented as a viable - even an ideal way to solve disputes. With making violence 'cool' and 'hip' some popular music stands for the exact opposite of what it used to. But although I agree with you on this issue I'm also suspicious about figures of authority deciding for you, me and the rest of us what we are and are not allowed to see and hear. So I guess I'm more in favor of changing people's minds through the means of communication than to force things upon them. You will say that this is naive, and you are right. But I like the alternative even less.
I especially agree with you about the violence against and the (s)exploitation of women. I'm in two minds about the abortion issue. Emotionally I support a woman's right to choose. On the other hand, there is no reason why a woman should get pregnant if she doesn't want it these days since there are ways to prevent that from happening.
Quote from: Franco on July 22, 2010, 10:49:30 AM
Except the 2008 financial collapse was caused in large part by government action, with Congress putting pressure on Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac to encourage more loans to the lower class demographic. This resulted in irresponsible lending practices since the mortgage brokers simply passed along the risk to FM/FM - which over leveraged them well beyond their capacity to deal with the potential losses.
Regarding deregulation in general, it is a profound reality that markets work best with as little as possible manipulation by outside agents (of which government is the largest) and as much information possible readily available. Most attempts to control the economy are futile since the variables at play are numerous and subtle, and the opportunity for unintended consequences much more likely than beneficial results so that the best and brightest within (and without) government reliably bring about financial crisis after crisis in the quest for economic stability.
By the way, it's nice to see that you and a few others here understand the root cause of the financial meltdown. It's not hard to understand, if you're paying attention and not just guzzling down the spin of the culprits busy pointing the finger everwhere else, and NOW claiming to be fixing the system that had been working pretty well until they f*cked it up. If there's any justice after this life, Dodd and Franks will be cleaning toilets in Hell.
The Subprime Crisis: Cause, Effect, and Consequences (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1113888),
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 23, 2010, 09:12:30 AM
By the way, it's nice to see that you and a few others here understand the root cause of the financial meltdown. It's not hard to understand, if you're paying attention and not just guzzling down the spin of the culprits busy pointing the finger everwhere else, and NOW claiming to be fixing the system that had been working pretty well until they f*cked it up. If there's any justice after this life, Dodd and Franks will be cleaning toilets in Hell.
The Subprime Crisis: Cause, Effect, and Consequences (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1113888),
Wait, just those two? No fault from Greenspan, no fault from Clinton, no fault from Reagan?
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 23, 2010, 09:12:30 AM
By the way, it's nice to see that you and a few others here understand the root cause of the financial meltdown. It's not hard to understand, if you're paying attention and not just guzzling down the spin of the culprits busy pointing the finger everwhere else, and NOW claiming to be fixing the system that had been working pretty well until they f*cked it up. If there's any justice after this life, Dodd and Franks will be cleaning toilets in Hell.
The Subprime Crisis: Cause, Effect, and Consequences (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1113888),
It is certainly true that the good intentioned effort to liberalize lending standards was a major contributor to the meltdown. However, I don't think the financial services sector is blameless. They exploited this environment by invented loan products that no financially literate person would ever agree to, with the intention of selling the resulting loans to third parties without making fair disclosure of the true prospects of those loans. Not that we should rely on the good wishes of bankers, but if there were regulations forcing adequate transparency and disclosure the self-interest of the financial service industry would not have been at crossed purposes with the economy as a whole.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 23, 2010, 09:21:51 AM
It is certainly true that the good intentioned effort to liberalize lending standards was a major contributor to the meltdown. However, I don't think the financial services sector is blameless. They exploited this environment by invented loan products that no financially literate person would ever agree to, with the intention of selling the resulting loans to third parties without making fair disclosure of the true prospects of those loans. Not that we should rely on the good wishes of bankers, but if there were regulations forcing adequate transparency and disclosure the self-interest of the financial service industry would not have been at crossed purposes with the economy as a whole.
Fantastic post.
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 23, 2010, 09:19:31 AM
Wait, just those two? No fault from Greenspan, no fault from Clinton, no fault from Reagan?
Don't forget Carter, the one who signed that silly thing into law, but I don't think anyone is denying the culpability of the government.
Quote from: kishnevi on July 22, 2010, 01:00:54 PM
Well, first off, the investor would follow one of the prime rules of investment: diversify. Don't out all one's eggs in the same basket. If you invest in ten companies, one may go bust and you lose one tenth of your money. But you'll keep nine tenths of the rest.
Yes, but the point is, if one company can do this and get away with it. EVERY company will practice insider trading and get away with it. Then you diversification strategy doesn't work.
Quote from: kishnevi on July 22, 2010, 01:00:54 PM
And do his own research, don't trust the company's propaganda.
How? Bribe the controller? Become drinking buddies with the CFO? You see how difficult that is? Without disclosure?
Quote from: kishnevi on July 22, 2010, 01:00:54 PM
In other words, if you are foolish enough to trust all your money to one company, too bad. Your folly does not require me to come help you. (Of course, there would be no rule to say that I shouldn't help you--if I choose to do so.)Pharma.
really? You wouldn't be so tough, if it was you or one of your family member who got screwed.
Quote from: kishnevi on July 22, 2010, 01:00:54 PM
The same sort of view informs the libertarian attitude on the "War on Drugs". First, it's battling human nature. Second, anyone who wants to should be free to use drugs. If they want to ruin their lives, or are foolish enough to risk ruining their lives, that's their choice, and it must be allowed.
I actually agree with you 100% here. :D
Quote from: kishnevi on July 22, 2010, 01:00:54 PM
But notice that your examples would all involve fraud by the company management, meaning the busted stockholders could sue them for their losses or they could be criminally prosecuted, depending on the exact circumstances. This without any intervention from government regulation.
My examples are just one in a million ways institutions can screw you out of your money. Rating agencies can collude (they have already done it!) with bond underwriters to issue crappy bonds with AAA ratings. You can diversify the heck you want, but those AAA bonds aren't prime, and you can sue them. Sure, just like trying to sue Madoff after he turned himself in. In most cases, most of the money will be gone.
Quote from: kishnevi on July 22, 2010, 01:00:54 PM
Regulation works only if there would be an iron wall by which regulators and regulatees could be divided forever. But unfortunately the pool of potential regulators is also the same as the people work in the business that is regulated. No one else has the requisite knowledge that is needed if regulation is to have any chance of working.
Instead what you have is a nexus of business and regulators--FDA and Big Pharma, for instance, operating hand in hand, usually to the benefit of Big Pharma.
I agree 100% with that too.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 23, 2010, 09:21:51 AM
with the intention of selling the resulting loans to third parties without making fair disclosure of the true prospects of those loans.
This isn't necessarily the case. The fact is that most people who created and packaged the deals disclosed what they perceived were realistic prospects for the loans, and the security tranches were specifically structured to meet those perceptions. It's also worth noting that the security originators were required to assume ownership of the unsecured tranches, which contributed significantly to the substantial losses at some of the shops (eg, Merrill, Lehman). Part of the irony here is that, at least early on, the firms
wanted to own those tranches because they had the highest potential yield.
A big part of the problem comes down to the silly thinking that took hold across the industry; some of the underlying assumptions about asset valuation and growth were simply faulty. Horribly, horribly faulty. That's one of the reasons that option ARMs grew so rapidly right near the end; people were so confident in valuation growth that they were willing to accept negative amortization on even piggyback product (ie, 100%+ financing). (Many people on the "ground level" at originators and servicers started raising red flags when option ARMs started filling the pipeline.) And then there was the opacity of the product that some mortgage brokers provided. Better due diligence should have been undertaken, of course, but believe it or not, the diligence that did occur was being signed off on through official processes. None of this is to say that fraud or other malfeasance did not occur - some most certainly did - but rather that much of what happened was not the result of an intentional attempt to mislead. Greed and stupidity took over.
Quote from: Todd on July 23, 2010, 09:53:08 AM
This isn't necessarily the case. The fact is that most people who created and packaged the deals disclosed what they perceived were realistic prospects for the loans, and the security tranches were specifically structured to meet those perceptions. It's also worth noting that the security originators were required to assume ownership of the unsecured tranches, which contributed significantly to the substantial losses at some of the shops (eg, Merrill, Lehman). Part of the irony here is that, at least early on, the firms wanted to own those tranches because they had the highest potential yield.
A big part of the problem comes down to the silly thinking that took hold across the industry; some of the underlying assumptions about asset valuation and growth were simply faulty. Horribly, horribly faulty. That's one of the reasons that option ARMs grew so rapidly right near the end; people were so confident in valuation growth that they were willing to accept negative amortization on even piggyback product (ie, 100%+ financing). (Many people on the "ground level" at originators and servicers started raising red flags when option ARMs started filling the pipeline.) And then there was the opacity of the product that some mortgage brokers provided. Better due diligence should have been undertaken, of course, but believe it or not, the diligence that did occur was being signed off on through official processes. None of this is to say that fraud or other malfeasance did not occur - some most certainly did - but rather that much of what happened was not the result of an intentional attempt to mislead. Greed and stupidity took over.
Damn, we're on our way to having an almost legitimate topic.
Quote from: Todd on July 23, 2010, 09:53:08 AM
This isn't necessarily the case. The fact is that most people who created and packaged the deals disclosed what they perceived were realistic prospects for the loans, and the security tranches were specifically structured to meet those perceptions. It's also worth noting that the security originators were required to assume ownership of the unsecured tranches, which contributed significantly to the substantial losses at some of the shops (eg, Merrill, Lehman). Part of the irony here is that, at least early on, the firms wanted to own those tranches because they had the highest potential yield.
A big part of the problem comes down to the silly thinking that took hold across the industry; some of the underlying assumptions about asset valuation and growth were simply faulty. Horribly, horribly faulty. That's one of the reasons that option ARMs grew so rapidly right near the end; people were so confident in valuation growth that they were willing to accept negative amortization on even piggyback product (ie, 100%+ financing). (Many people on the "ground level" at originators and servicers started raising red flags when option ARMs started filling the pipeline.) And then there was the opacity of the product that some mortgage brokers provided. Better due diligence should have been undertaken, of course, but believe it or not, the diligence that did occur was being signed off on through official processes. None of this is to say that fraud or other malfeasance did not occur - some most certainly did - but rather that much of what happened was not the result of an intentional attempt to mislead. Greed and stupidity took over.
I guess you could claim that under the delusion that property prices would continue to explode without bound even the most absurd mortgage terms would be justified. In any case, the mechanism you are describing seems to hinge more on delusional financial speculation, rather than attempts by some in government to increase home ownership, although one may have facilitated the other.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 23, 2010, 10:13:08 AM
I guess you could claim that under the delusion that property prices would continue to explode without bound even the most absurd mortgage terms would be justified. In any case, the mechanism you are describing seems to hinge more on delusional financial speculation, rather than attempts by some in government to increase home ownership, although one may have facilitated the other.
Well I think that Todd hit it on the nose, greed and stupidity. I think it was the government's backing of the housing market that make the financial market feel secure in its delusional housing price projections.
Sigh. Are you guys still at it, conversing in fully-formed sentences and exchanging differing but sane opinions in a rational manner without resorting to CAPS? Just quit, will you, I want to read more of Teresa's fantastical theories... >:D >:D
Quote from: Scarpia on July 23, 2010, 10:13:08 AM
I guess you could claim that under the delusion that property prices would continue to explode without bound even the most absurd mortgage terms would be justified.
I don't think it ever got that far, but close. In 2006 and 2007, people were racing to underwrite more questionable product – not just option ARMs, but under-documented loans (eg, NINJA loans) as well – because there really was a belief that by the time the five year (or whatever timeline) recast was reached, or even a year or two hence, the property value would be such that it could be either refinanced or foreclosed profitably.
Part of this mind-set was cynical sales pitch, but it would not have continued had the underlying assumptions not been believed, at least to some extent.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 23, 2010, 10:13:08 AM
In any case, the mechanism you are describing seems to hinge more on delusional financial speculation, rather than attempts by some in government to increase home ownership, although one may have facilitated the other.
There was an element of delusional thinking, no doubt. There were always naysayers, but as is so often the case in the corporate world (and government, too), naysayers are ignored. The government, or Fannie and Freddie at any rate, did, recklessly, encourage and even strong arm lenders to make loans that should never have been made, but anyone who wants to try to blame the government for the meltdown is ignoring the fact that much sub-prime product had nothing to do with Fannie or Freddie. They have standards, albeit surprisingly low ones.
(And everyone, do remember that until they were taken into receivership, Fannie and Freddie were not backed by the full faith and credit of the Federal government. Wink, wink.)
Quote from: Luke on July 23, 2010, 10:26:35 AM
Sigh. Are you guys still at it, conversing in fully-formed sentences and exchanging differing but sane opinions in a rational manner without resorting to CAPS? Just quit, will you, I want to read more of Teresa's fantastical theories... >:D >:D
:(
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 23, 2010, 09:19:31 AM
Wait, just those two? No fault from Greenspan, no fault from Clinton, no fault from Reagan?
Hardly--and no one suggested such a thing. Nor suggested no fault on the part of the greedy mortgage industry hustling to churn paper and pocket origination fees, nor the greedy jerks jumping into those no-interest ARMs in bad faith, nor the regulators and industry watchdogs asleep at the switch. But Franks and Dodd's heinously hypocritical finger-pointing and sanctimonious blathering make them prime candidates for latrine duty in Hades.
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 23, 2010, 09:52:25 AM
Yes, but the point is, if one company can do this and get away with it. EVERY company will practice insider trading and get away with it. Then you diversification strategy doesn't work.
If things were that bad, people would simply stop investing, or invest only with people they know personally and trust. IOW, the market would grind to a halt until honesty returned.
Quote
How? Bribe the controller? Become drinking buddies with the CFO? You see how difficult that is? Without disclosure?
I didn't say the companies should not be disclose information. I said people should not automatically take such information at face value. And again, if you can't get the degree o information you want, you won't invest.
Quote
really? You wouldn't be so tough, if it was you or one of your family member who got screwed.
I wouldn't be me, because I don't invest in such a foolish way. And if it was a family member, I would lay the blame for my relative's problem squarely where it should belong--with my relative, for being stupid. No one would force him to invest that way--in fact, every source you read tells you to diversify. If he couldn't follow that advice, that's his problem not mine.
Quote
My examples are just one in a million ways institutions can screw you out of your money. Rating agencies can collude (they have already done it!) with bond underwriters to issue crappy bonds with AAA ratings. You can diversify the heck you want, but those AAA bonds aren't prime, and you can sue them. Sure, just like trying to sue Madoff after he turned himself in. In most cases, most of the money will be gone.
Which is why you need to do as much homework as possible--and if you still don't trust them, don't invest (or at least don't invest very much).
As it is, with TARP and the rest, I'm paying for their mistakes without having any mortgate related investment. Not even one of my own--the one on our house was paid off several years ago.
Quote from: Teresa on July 23, 2010, 02:54:47 AM
The Green Party does not have an official policy on Porn although they do support feminism, and most feminist are anti-porn as it objectifies a woman's body and turns us into sex objects.
Does that mean feminism doesn't mind gay porn?
Quote from: kishnevi on July 23, 2010, 01:23:37 PM
As it is, with TARP and the rest, I'm paying for their mistakes without having any mortgate related investment.
Taxpayers should be thankful for TARP. Over half the money spent has already been recovered, and the government has collected over $25 billion in dividends and interest on top of that. Not only will all of the TARP funds spent be recovered over time, but the taxpayers will realize a net gain, all of which will all be used to pay down the debt (a little item the evil Republicans slipped into the financial regulation bill). And TARP prevented true economic catastrophe. It's one of the better bailouts yet devised as far as I'm concerned. BTW, just over half of TARP was spent, so it was cheaper than advertised. How often can you say that about a government program?
Quote from: 71 dB on July 23, 2010, 01:46:26 AM
I don't think our economical thoughts are that different if we both think in a "green way". It's all about how we weight things. Or is there a difference? Is The Green Party in USA a substitute of a real left-wing party? In Finland we do have "real" left wing parties, so The Greens don't have to fill that hole. For me to be Green doesn't mean to be a leftist. It means to be ahead of others. I want to take the best ideas from left and right for the best possible results.
Remember, these questions were for American people from an American point of view. I tried to translate my Finnish point of view to American point of view. For example, minimum wage isn't such an issue in Finland that it is in US.
Our real difference is in banning porn and violence, not in economical issues. Also, I am an atheist and against religion.
European politics seems to have a center of gravity further to the left than the United States, probably because the USA has a tradition of small government and focus on the individual that does not run as deep in Europe, and the right has a double orientation here that it may not have in Europe--both nationalist and anti-government. From the US perspective, the European far right is really another form of the far left. US conservatives often like to point out that the Nazis and Communists had almost the same economic philosophy--the main difference was that the Nazis were willing to let legal ownership of production remain in private hands, as long as those private hands did what the State required of them. But the State called all the shots in the end, just as it did in the Soviet Union.
There are some extreme left parties in the US that are openly Communist or militantly Socialist in origin; the Greens are not at that extreme, but for American purposes they are extreme enough--the furthest left people can go and still have a chance to get on the ballot (like Ralph Nader did in 2000).
I'm at the other end--libertarian, which means I belong to the far right in as much as it is focused on individualism and small government--but not the nationalist right such as the "neoCons" or the social conservatives who want to ban abortion, gay marriage, because both of those are at bottom anti-individualistic. Strong military requires a strong government; abortion, gay marriage, etc, have to be recognized as individual choices about which no one else has the right to interfere.
Quote from: Todd on July 23, 2010, 01:28:47 PM
Taxpayers should be thankful for TARP. Over half the money spent has already been recovered, and the government has collected over $25 billion in dividends and interest on top of that. Not only will all of the TARP funds spent be recovered over time, but the taxpayers will realize a net gain, all of which will all be used to pay down the debt (a little item the evil Republicans slipped into the financial regulation bill). And TARP prevented true economic catastrophe. It's one of the better bailouts yet devised as far as I'm concerned. BTW, just over half of TARP was spent, so it was cheaper than advertised. How often can you say that about a government program?
It was wrong because it was a bailout, using imaginary money (that's what government spending now is, because of the deficit). To be paid back with equally imaginary money thanks to the deficit and the stimulus. Did you realize the US money supply, because of all that happened, more than doubled? Which means at some point either the money supply will have to be purposely shrunk or inflation will strike rather savagely, increasing prices either gradually or suddenly by about 100 percent.
As to economic catastrophe: the only actual evidence is the assertions of the people who trying to convince voters that TARP was necessary. We'll never know how true that is, beyond speculation. But I would venture to say the most likely scenario if there was no bailout would have been a very sharp decline followed by a sharp recovery. Without a bailout, all the bad stuff would have been shaken out of the system at once; now it lingers there, and may do so for years and years.
Quote from: kishnevi on July 23, 2010, 01:44:46 PM
From the US perspective, the European far right is really another form of the far left. US conservatives often like to point out that the Nazis and Communists had almost the same economic philosophy--the main difference was that the Nazis were willing to let legal ownership of production remain in private hands, as long as those private hands did what the State required of them. But the State called all the shots in the end, just as it did in the Soviet Union.
The problem is the misunderstanding and misrepresentation by some conservative commentators. Neo-Nazi's, Skin Heads, and the Klu-Klux Klan consider themselves
extreme right-wing. Indeed all of the these groups are
VIOLENTLY anti-communists, anti-Jewish, anti-immigration and anti-big government. Most members of the Klu-Klux Klan are Republicans including the infamous David Duke.
Ku Klux Klan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan)
"Ku Klux Klan, often abbreviated KKK and informally known as The Klan, is the name of three distinct past and present right-wing organizations in the United States, which have advocated extremist reactionary currents such as white supremacy and nationalism."
Quote from: kishnevi on July 23, 2010, 01:54:31 PMDid you realize the US money supply, because of all that happened, more than doubled? Which means at some point either the money supply will have to be purposely shrunk or inflation will strike rather savagely, increasing prices either gradually or suddenly by about 100 percent.
A money supply discussion! Well, which measure of the money supply increased as much as you say? And how would that translate into a 100% increase in prices "either gradually or suddenly"? If you're so certain of your predictions, may I ask how much gold and/or TIPS you've bought? Given the choice between shrinking (aka, sanitizing) the money supply and high inflation, what do you think the Fed will do? Since the Fed is already publicizing their plans for reducing the money supply when necessary, I think the answer is clear, don't you?
As to your assertion that "[w]e'll never know how true that is, beyond speculation[,]" well, that's only partly true, if even that. Financial collapses have happened multiple times in advanced countries, and sometimes there were robust and effective policy solutions (Sweden in the 90s, for instance), and sometimes there were not (Japan in the early 90s, most of the world in the 1930s, the US in the 1870s).
So, a couple years ago, policy makers and elected politicians were thus faced with a choice: do nothing, and hope Ricardian (or Marshallian, if you prefer) economics works this time, or get involved in a segment of the economy that affects all others (ie, the financial sector), and hope that Keynesian economics works. History is unambiguously clear: markets can and do fail, and market forces do not always end up establishing a "full employment" equilibrium, and they do not always shake all of the bad stuff out of the economies all at once. Indeed, can you please provide an historical example when that did occur? Do not try to dodge the question with some type of "governments always get involved" type response, because I want to learn about the empirical evidence you base your assertion on. Keynesian policies and government intervention are not always or even frequently desirable, but the alternative outcome, especially in this case, was far worse. It looks to me that you've forgotten just how bad the credit markets were at the end of 2008. The lack of liquidity was not fabricated to sell TARP to the public. It started in the late summer and early fall, and by winter it was worse, not better. This begs the question: how come the bad stuff didn't shake out of the system all at once? You said it would, so please, offer some detail of why it did not in late 2008, before TARP was in place. Would all at once have meant three months more? Six months? Twelve? Twenty-Four? How long is all at once? I really want to know.
Something else that is unambiguously clear is that had the Federal government not stepped in and provided additional liquidity to firms that needed it, more institutions would have failed. With assets being marked to market, with counter-parties no longer willing to lend, the end was near for some other institutions. That in itself isn't a bad thing, but if that would have happened if in addition to the firms that are already gone (Lehman, Merrill, Bear Stearns, dozens of small banks, hundreds of originators, dozens of servicers) an equally large number of others would have gone too? What if more had failed? While the non-bank sector can certainly lend some money, it cannot offer the array of products, nor the amounts of capital, that functioning financial institutions can. Then we would be a situation where the government may have to act as direct lender. That's worse yet.
Your reply strikes me as ideological and unconcerned with facts on the ground. I'm a life-long supporter of free markets generally – you won't see me write bad things about the private sector or trade in general, and I think the second wave of globalization is one of the greatest developments in human history – but I cannot avoid looking at reality to make sure my ideology is pure. When true economic catastrophe is imminent, in the form of collapsing financial giants that can freeze the entire financial sector, action is required. Any political-economic system can collapse and be gone forever; given that I think the one that exists in most of the world today, including the US system, is much better than average, I found action to be warranted. I don't think the entire system would have collapsed Soviet style, but it would have been much, much worse had no action been taken.
Quote from: Teresa on July 23, 2010, 02:26:08 PM
The problem is the misunderstanding and misrepresentation by some conservative commentators. Neo-Nazi's, Skin Heads, and the Klu-Klux Klan consider themselves extreme right-wing. Indeed all of the these groups are VIOLENTLY anti-communists, anti-Jewish, anti-immigration and anti-big government. Most members of the Klu-Klux Klan are Republicans including the infamous David Duke.
Ku Klux Klan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan)
"Ku Klux Klan, often abbreviated KKK and informally known as The Klan, is the name of three distinct past and present right-wing organizations in the United States, which have advocated extremist reactionary currents such as white supremacy and nationalism."
When the organism is threatened, it is customary for some of the most violent elements of a race to act as
anti-bodies to clear out any foreign contaminants. In order to suppress those tendencies, white people have opted to neutralize their entire immune system, which is leading to the complete annihilation of the race. I guess there is no way we are ever going to hurt anybody once we're gone extinct. That appears to be the general idea. On a related note, the fact
The Birth of a Nation was actually a really good film must really sting a lot of liberals. I wonder how they go around teaching that in film schools.
Quote from: kishnevi on July 23, 2010, 01:28:35 PM
Does that mean feminism doesn't mind gay porn?
Most (not all) feminists are against all forms of porn.
http://www.youtube.com/v/9CL-nHdMFSc
Anti-pornography movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-pornography_movement)
"People involved in the anti-pornography movement include religious groups, feminists, ex-porn stars, psychologists, and individuals who feel that pornography plays a major role in the breakdown of marriages and relationships."(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f0/Porn_hurts.jpg/220px-Porn_hurts.jpg)
Quote from: Teresa on July 23, 2010, 05:32:52 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f0/Porn_hurts.jpg/220px-Porn_hurts.jpg)
Really? It seems to me the only people who have been "hurt" are people like you.
Quote from: Teresa on July 23, 2010, 02:26:08 PM
The problem is the misunderstanding and misrepresentation by some conservative commentators. Neo-Nazi's, Skin Heads, and the Klu-Klux Klan consider themselves extreme right-wing. Indeed all of the these groups are VIOLENTLY anti-communists, anti-Jewish, anti-immigration and anti-big government. Most members of the Klu-Klux Klan are Republicans including the infamous David Duke.
Ku Klux Klan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan)
"Ku Klux Klan, often abbreviated KKK and informally known as The Klan, is the name of three distinct past and present right-wing organizations in the United States, which have advocated extremist reactionary currents such as white supremacy and nationalism."
The groups you mention are against individualism: they aim for a collective that has complete control over the individual. They merely have a different collective in mind (the race or the nation). They are therefore philosophically no different from the communists.
Conservatism has two sources that are in conflict with each other--authoritarianism and libertarianism. The Republican Party adheres in general to the authoritarian model, with lip service to the libertarian for the sake of getting votes. The Democrats, like the Greens, aksi adhere to the authoritariian model. They may honestly consider themselves leftist and liberal, but they are not; so no mainstream party defends individualism.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 23, 2010, 04:21:04 PM
On a related note, the fact The Birth of a Nation was actually a really good film must really sting a lot of liberals. I wonder how they go around teaching that in film schools.
Similarly to how they teach about Triumph of the Will. One can critique a film in terms of style and technique independently of content or message. This film, for example, was able to address the different threads separately.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wonderful,_Horrible_Life_of_Leni_Riefenstahl
For D.W. Griffith-- I'd say his masterwork was the next film Intolerance, which, as it may disappoint some, was actually AGAINST intolterance.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 23, 2010, 04:21:04 PM
When the organism is threatened, it is customary for some of the most violent elements of a race to act as anti-bodies to clear out any foreign contaminants. In order to suppress those tendencies, white people have opted to neutralize their entire immune system, which is leading to the complete annihilation of the race. I guess there is no way we are ever going to hurt anybody once we're gone extinct.
Or perhaps the "white race" more desperately needs to be saved from the likes of this...
Quote from: jowcol on July 24, 2010, 02:31:58 AM
Or perhaps the "white race" more desperately needs to be saved from the likes of this...
We'll talk about this once whites becomes a minority in their own countries.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 24, 2010, 05:12:13 AM
We'll talk about this once whites becomes a minority in their own countries.
*cue ominous music*
Da-da-Daaaaaa!
Quote from: kishnevi on July 23, 2010, 01:23:37 PM
If things were that bad, people would simply stop investing, or invest only with people they know personally and trust. IOW, the market would grind to a halt until honesty returned.
Yes, except it actually happened. Ever heard of the stock market crash? People didn't just "stop" investing, the economy grind to a halt. People lost their jobs, savings, and basically left with nothing.
Quote from: kishnevi on July 23, 2010, 01:23:37 PM
I didn't say the companies should not be disclose information. I said people should not automatically take such information at face value. And again, if you can't get the degree o information you want, you won't invest.
YOU wouldn't, you are savvy, you are a financial wiz. But, shouldn't we protect people who aren't as savvy as you? What about institutional investors, they are susceptible to lies too. If someone lied to you, how would you know that they are lying? Stuff like this happens all the time. And you are saying it's not the fault of the people who are telling the lie (doing the unlawful thing), but the people who on the other hand trusted these so called professionals.
Quote from: kishnevi on July 23, 2010, 01:23:37 PM
And if it was a family member, I would lay the blame for my relative's problem squarely where it should belong--with my relative, for being stupid. No one would force him to invest that way--in fact, every source you read tells you to diversify. If he couldn't follow that advice, that's his problem not mine. Which is why you need to do as much homework as possible--and if you still don't trust them, don't invest (or at least don't invest very much).
Again, you are being unrealistic. Not everyone think the way you do. There are people who tend to trust strangers, and there are people who are naturally suspicious. Your view on law making is pretty harsh on the "weak". By your line of reasoning, we should get rid of other laws. Right, murder? Why didn't you defend yourself with a gun? Theft? why didn't you look after your stuff better? Tough luck right?
Quote from: kishnevi on July 23, 2010, 01:23:37 PM
As it is, with TARP and the rest, I'm paying for their mistakes without having any mortgate related investment. Not even one of my own--the one on our house was paid off several years ago.
That I can understand. I too am very angry about using tax payer's money to bail out wall street banks. But, bailout is not wrong in principle. It is
how it was used that was totally unacceptable. Let's take the AIG bailout, they paid out those CDSs 100 cents on the dollar. And sorry, that's just not right. The truth is that the people who are in charge of making those decisions, be it Paulson, or Geitner. Are part of the Wall Street Club, they are just helping out their buddies. So, of course the first thing in their mind is to give them 100c ents on the dollar for every piece of crap AIG owns. So, the real question is why are the people we elected into office. Obama and company, so corporatist? and if so, we should challenge him, and vote him out of the office.
Quote from: Todd on July 23, 2010, 01:28:47 PM
Taxpayers should be thankful for TARP. Over half the money spent has already been recovered, and the government has collected over $25 billion in dividends and interest on top of that. Not only will all of the TARP funds spent be recovered over time, but the taxpayers will realize a net gain, all of which will all be used to pay down the debt (a little item the evil Republicans slipped into the financial regulation bill). And TARP prevented true economic catastrophe. It's one of the better bailouts yet devised as far as I'm concerned. BTW, just over half of TARP was spent, so it was cheaper than advertised. How often can you say that about a government program?
how do you feel about Elizabeth Warren then?
Quote from: kishnevi on July 23, 2010, 01:54:31 PM
It was wrong because it was a bailout, using imaginary money (that's what government spending now is, because of the deficit).
To an economist (which I am one). There is nothing intrinsically "right' or "wrong". We economists don't discuss morals, not because we are terrible human beings. But, because under our frame of thinking, problem solving. We must make decisions based only on it's practical result.
For instance, bailing out people who have made mistakes is wrong, that's common sense right? you don't bail me out if i overspent and can't pay back my debts, right? but on a macro level, it's a different matter. Everything is related, and to economists, if bailing out them meaning -100 damage, and as opposed to -200 damage for not bailing them out. We will proceed with the lesser of the two evils.
Quote from: kishnevi on July 23, 2010, 01:54:31 PM
To be paid back with equally imaginary money thanks to the deficit and the stimulus. Did you realize the US money supply, because of all that happened, more than doubled? Which means at some point either the money supply will have to be purposely shrunk or inflation will strike rather savagely, increasing prices either gradually or suddenly by about 100 percent.
do you have evidence for that? I look at CPI (http://www.bls.gov/cpi/) for inflation data, and the last time I checked there was no visible signs of inflation. Frankly, Fed can print as much money as they want. It won't really impact us that much, unless China stops buying our treasury bills. Which is unlikely if they want to keep their currency peg.
Quote from: Todd on July 23, 2010, 09:53:08 AM
This isn't necessarily the case. The fact is that most people who created and packaged the deals disclosed what they perceived were realistic prospects for the loans, and the security tranches were specifically structured to meet those perceptions. It's also worth noting that the security originators were required to assume ownership of the unsecured tranches, which contributed significantly to the substantial losses at some of the shops (eg, Merrill, Lehman). Part of the irony here is that, at least early on, the firms wanted to own those tranches because they had the highest potential yield.
A big part of the problem comes down to the silly thinking that took hold across the industry; some of the underlying assumptions about asset valuation and growth were simply faulty. Horribly, horribly faulty. That's one of the reasons that option ARMs grew so rapidly right near the end; people were so confident in valuation growth that they were willing to accept negative amortization on even piggyback product (ie, 100%+ financing). (Many people on the "ground level" at originators and servicers started raising red flags when option ARMs started filling the pipeline.) And then there was the opacity of the product that some mortgage brokers provided. Better due diligence should have been undertaken, of course, but believe it or not, the diligence that did occur was being signed off on through official processes. None of this is to say that fraud or other malfeasance did not occur - some most certainly did - but rather that much of what happened was not the result of an intentional attempt to mislead. Greed and stupidity took over.
Very interesting, Todd. This tracks with everything I've seen. While there's always some dishonesty involved, most of the explanation for these bubbles has to do with the psychology of markets. We've seen these events happen periodically over the centuries and they always are accompanied by a foolish disregard for the fact that what goes up comes down. A kind of utopian optimism grips everyone except a few who seem to be immune, and who are not listened to because
they don't understand that this time it's different, this time the market will go up forever. It's also interesting to compare the syndrome to the mirror image of Doomerism. Both rely on a very selective reading of empirical data and project trends out into the future as though no other trends existed or ever will.
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 24, 2010, 08:08:24 AM
Which is unlikely if they want to keep their currency peg.
Well bad news then, apparently China is switching the Yuan to a basket of currencies instead of simply just pegging it to the dollar. :)
Quote from: Philoctetes on July 24, 2010, 08:12:00 AM
Well bad news then, apparently China is switching the Yuan to a basket of currencies instead of simply just pegging it to the dollar. :)
still, they have way too much foreign reserves. If I were China, i would just buy stuff like gold, oil fields, invest money in the developing countries (as opposed to buying U.S treasuries). But, you have to remember, even if they do all that, they still have a massive of amount of dollar in their bank left.
What China is doing is really raping their own people. RMB is worth so much more, and because they won't give up the edge in manufacturing. They are depriving their people of the rights to buy cheaper foreign goods. Which is not a good thing. People will behave irresponsibly with money in China. They have already done so. They have speculated in real estate so much that it has become a bubble; built buildings and cities with no practical use and people; over indulging on crap that's over-price. the result is that inflation is soaring in China.
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 24, 2010, 08:08:24 AM
To an economist (which I am one). There is nothing intrinsically "right' or "wrong". We economists don't discuss morals, not because we are terrible human beings. But, because under our frame of thinking, problem solving. We must make decisions based only on it's practical result.
That's where we differ. The morality/immorality/amorality is part and parcel of a practical result. To refuse to consider the moral implications of an action is itself an act with moral implications and practical results.
Quote
For instance, bailing out people who have made mistakes is wrong, that's common sense right? you don't bail me out if i overspent and can't pay back my debts, right? but on a macro level, it's a different matter. Everything is related, and to economists, if bailing out them meaning -100 damage, and as opposed to -200 damage for not bailing them out. We will proceed with the lesser of the two evils.
Encouraging them to enage in risky activity again. And again, since morality is inextricably woven into all decision making, the immorality of bailing out people may outweight any strictly economic damage.
Quote
do you have evidence for that? I look at CPI (http://www.bls.gov/cpi/) for inflation data, and the last time I checked there was no visible signs of inflation. Frankly, Fed can print as much money as they want. It won't really impact us that much, unless China stops buying our treasury bills. Which is unlikely if they want to keep their currency peg.
As I understand the situation, inflation hasn't hit because most of the money isn't actually in circulation; the various banks are keeping it on deposit with the Fed instead of actually making loans with it, etc. But I do know that plenty of the things I buy weekly at the grocery, etc. have gone up in price at least a little bit over the last year.
Also, you may not be aware of easy it is for the gov't to manipulate the CPI by changing the items in the basket of goods they use to calculate it. I work for a major department store. During the 90s , a woman would come in once a month and check some items to see what the prices were, and if any prices had changed; this was part of the research involved in determining the CPI. One of those items was a basic Nike running shoe, retail $40--probably their cheapest running shoe. At one point, Nike replaced this shoe with a new, updated version--almost exactly the same, except for colors and a few details. In doing so, they raised the price to $45. Next month, the woman appeared and checked, not the price of the replacement Nike, but the price of the running shoe we carried under our own private label, which had a retail of $30. By this little adjustment, the basket of goods, instead of going up by $5 if it had been honestly done, went down by $10. The decision to switch items had quite obviously been made somewhere higher up in the bureaucratic chain of command. And they never went back to the Nike, I might add.
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 24, 2010, 07:57:56 AM
Yes, except it actually happened. Ever heard of the stock market crash? People didn't just "stop" investing, the economy grind to a halt. People lost their jobs, savings, and basically left with nothing.
Yes. But it was made worse by government intervention (for clarity's sake, I'm referring to the Hoover administration, not Roosevelt).
But there were actually a lot of people who did not lose their jobs, and were not left withn nothing. Not every bank in the country failed, and plenty of businesses stayed open.
Quote
YOU wouldn't, you are savvy, you are a financial wiz. But, shouldn't we protect people who aren't as savvy as you? What about institutional investors, they are susceptible to lies too. If someone lied to you, how would you know that they are lying? Stuff like this happens all the time.
Why should we protect them? It's like windstorm insurance: because I choose to live in a state that is particularly exposed to hurricanes, should you pay to repair my house if it gets damaged by a hurricane?
Not being savvy about investing is not a reason to protect people from their mistakes. It's a reason for them to learn about how to invest, or not to invest until they do so.
And if you take a risk, then you have to take the results if the risk become reality. Not me, or anyone else who is not a party to the transaction. By protecting them, you are telling them they don't really need to get savvy about investing, because you will cover their losses if there are any losses.
Quote
And you are saying it's not the fault of the people who are telling the lie (doing the unlawful thing), but the people who on the other hand trusted these so called professionals.
That's not what I said (or at least, meant to say; perhaps I wasn't clear enough). Yes, it is the fault of the people who lied. So they should be made to pay through criminal punishment or civil suits. But it's also the fault of the person who did not invest wisely.
It's not the fault of the taxpayer, the outside third party who had nothign to do with the matter. So why should the taxpayer pay?
Quote
Again, you are being unrealistic. Not everyone think the way you do. There are people who tend to trust strangers, and there are people who are naturally suspicious. Your view on law making is pretty harsh on the "weak". By your line of reasoning, we should get rid of other laws. Right, murder? Why didn't you defend yourself with a gun? Theft? why didn't you look after your stuff better? Tough luck right?
Not at all. What I am saying is that the results of taking a risk should remain with the people who took the risk.
Say I invested in Lehman Bros. during the bubble, and lost heavily. I'm the one who took the risk, so I should be the one to suffer--not an outside party (the taxpayer, in the case of the bailouts). Otherwise I'm not really taking a risk, which means I won't stop to consider whether or not I'm taking too much risk. I won't care, because I know the taxpayers will make me whole if I take the wrong decision.
Quote
That I can understand. I too am very angry about using tax payer's money to bail out wall street banks. But, bailout is not wrong in principle. It is how it was used that was totally unacceptable. Let's take the AIG bailout, they paid out those CDSs 100 cents on the dollar. And sorry, that's just not right. The truth is that the people who are in charge of making those decisions, be it Paulson, or Geitner. Are part of the Wall Street Club, they are just helping out their buddies. So, of course the first thing in their mind is to give them 100c ents on the dollar for every piece of crap AIG owns. So, the real question is why are the people we elected into office. Obama and company, so corporatist? and if so, we should challenge him, and vote him out of the office.
To which I will only respond with a couple of questions: how would we determine what the correct amount is (or even if there was a correct amount), and who makes the decision. And why should we only give a partial bailout? If I'm bailing out to the tune of sixty cents on the dollar or whatever, why shouldn't I do it at a hundred cents to the dollar.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 23, 2010, 04:21:04 PM
When the organism is threatened, it is customary for some of the most violent elements of a race to act as anti-bodies to clear out any foreign contaminants. In order to suppress those tendencies, white people have opted to neutralize their entire immune system, which is leading to the complete annihilation of the race. I guess there is no way we are ever going to hurt anybody once we're gone extinct. That appears to be the general idea. On a related note, the fact The Birth of a Nation was actually a really good film must really sting a lot of liberals. I wonder how they go around teaching that in film schools.
There are two ways at looking at the 'Race' Issue.
From a biblical point of view, or from a secular point of view.
If you believe in the Bible and that the Human Being, Adam was created by God, then there is no room for 'Races' because all people can trace their origin to that very first human being.
From a secular point of view:
You believe that you came from the apes, and therefore you think that Whites have 'progressed' more then the Blacks who many scientists still believe that they are the 'missing link' of the Apes.
You therefore must choose, what you believe in, the Bible and therefore you should consider all people regardless of their looks as your flesh and blood brothers and sisters who share an ancient historical father and mother.
Or you believe the 'scientists' who consider the human being as an accidental creature, who developed from an ape to a human being, and therefore choose to say that your 'race' is more developed from all other races.
This is the choice, and there is no way you can say that you believe in both, for they stand is complete opposition to each other.
Quote from: Saul on July 24, 2010, 08:43:23 PMFrom a secular point of view:
You believe that you came from the apes, and therefore you think that Whites have 'progressed' more then the Blacks who many scientists still believe that they are the 'missing link' of the Apes.
This is an absurd parody of any reasonable secular view. I do not know of a single scientist who believes this. In the first place, there is no clear scientific or genetic basis for the concept of race. What difference do exist came into existence after humans evolved into their current state and dispersed thoughout the world. No race is closer to the originating species than any other race.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 24, 2010, 08:51:16 PM
This is an absurd parody of any reasonable secular view. I do not know of a single scientist who believes this. In the first place, there is no clear scientific or genetic basis for the concept of race. What difference do exist came into existence after humans evolved into their current state and dispersed thoughout the world. No race is closer to the originating species than any other race.
God damnit!
Quote from: Scarpia on July 24, 2010, 08:51:16 PM
This is an absurd parody of any reasonable secular view. I do not know of a single scientist who believes this. In the first place, there is no clear scientific or genetic basis for the concept of race. What difference do exist came into existence after humans evolved into their current state and dispersed thoughout the world. No race is closer to the originating species than any other race.
Read this article and be informed:
http://scienceblog.com/cms/americans-still-linking-blacks-apes-15428.html
Quote from: Saul on July 24, 2010, 08:58:59 PM
Read this article and be informed:
http://scienceblog.com/cms/americans-still-linking-blacks-apes-15428.html
The article says that some idiotic Americans link blacks with apes. You said that "scientists" believe this, which is absurd.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 24, 2010, 08:51:16 PM
In the first place, there is no clear scientific or genetic basis for the concept of race.
Then explain this:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/61169/title/Genetics_may_underlie_some_kidney_failure_in_blacks
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1993074,00.html?artId=1993074?contType=article?chn=sciHealth
Quote from: Scarpia on July 24, 2010, 09:01:06 PM
The article says that some idiotic Americans link blacks with apes. You said that "scientists" believe this, which is absurd.
Why would you even waste your time? There are lots of good posters in the thread who would be better served with your wasting time on them. Just saying.
Like me. I enjoy your posts where your breath isn't wasted. Just saying.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 24, 2010, 09:01:06 PM
The article says that some idiotic Americans link blacks with apes. You said that "scientists" believe this, which is absurd.
Again if you need actual names read this and be informed:Charles Darwin (along with Thomas Huxley) was openly racist (Milton 1997:186,277). Human evolution had no evidence in support except observed "similarity" to living apes (Wells 2000:216). After rejecting God AS the Creator, Darwin and company THEN "saw" the "similarity" between Africans and apes, hence the idea of human evolution was conceived.
The origin of the idea that humans evolved came about when the God of the Bible was rejected, THEN from this departure, Darwin and his cohorts "saw" the "similarity" and the theory was born - out of their racist minds. Notice AFTER God is rejected then racist human evolution theory developed.
Benjamin Wiker said that according to Darwin, the European race, following the inevitable laws of natural selection, will emerge as the distinct species, human being, and all the transitional forms—such as the gorilla, chimpanzee, Negro, Australian aborigine and so on—will be extinct (Wiker 2002:250).
John C. Burhan:
Before 1859 (before Darwin's Origin), many scientists had questioned whether blacks were of the same species as whites, but they had no scientific basis for that notion. Things changed once Darwin presented his racist evolutionary schema. Darwin stated that African-Americans could not survive competition with their white near-relations, let alone being able to compete with the white race. According to Darwin, the African was inferior because he represented the missing-link" between ape and Teuton. (Burham 1972:506)."
http://creationwiki.org/Darwin_himself_was_racist
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 24, 2010, 09:03:09 PM
Then explain this:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/61169/title/Genetics_may_underlie_some_kidney_failure_in_blacks
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1993074,00.html?artId=1993074?contType=article?chn=sciHealth
There is no doubt that different races share certain genetic elements, most obviously for skin pigment and other characteristics. However, overall genetic variation among members of a race is large compared with genetic variation between different racial groups, which makes genetic difference between races superficial.
Quote from: Saul on July 24, 2010, 08:43:23 PM
You therefore must choose, what you believe in, the Bible and therefore you should consider all people regardless of their looks as your flesh and blood brothers and sisters who share an ancient historical father and mother.
Yeah, except for Jews, who appear to be more "equal" then other in the eyes of God.
Francis Parker Yockey classified race as the following:
QuoteWE ATTAIN NOW to the grand formula of the 20th century outlook on Race: Race is a horizontal differentiation of men. The materialism of the 19th century, confusing race with anatomy, regarded Race as a vertical differentiation of men. It was "abstract"--away from Reality--and started from the will-to-systematize, rather than from quiet contemplation of the living facts. Such contemplation was made difficult for them by the existence of political nationalism, which tried to build walls of all kinds between the Western races and peoples.
But had they been able to pierce through to a view of the facts, these materialists would have seen that the races of Europe were the creations of History and not a mere continuation of the aboriginal material that was present in 900 A.D., before the beginning of high History in this area. Viewing the process of creation of races, they would have seen the far greater significance of Race in the subjective sense than in the objective sense. For it is always men of race that create the deeds of History, and the units they are leading are of secondary importance.
The attempt to create a vertical system of races was Apollonian--it was an effort of the intellect. Actually Race has the primary meaning of presence of strong cosmic rhythm--a Dionysian meaning.
Thus, race can be understood from a
metaphysical point of view, which is where it matters most. However, because the metaphysical manifestation of race is tied to identity, and since identity is build upon a vertical differentiation of mankind, racial mixing can eventually lead to the destruction of any metaphysical manifestation within a given race. When speaking of the European races, the manifestation of the spiritual essence of those races is western civilization. Thus, as the invading foreign elements currently spreading out into our ancestral lands grow bigger and bigger, so too will our racial manifestation diminish, until one day there won't be nothing left of western civilization other then a dim memory. Our history, our arts, our accomplishments. Everything will just disappear in the dust bin of history.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 24, 2010, 09:03:09 PM
Then explain this:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/61169/title/Genetics_may_underlie_some_kidney_failure_in_blacks
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1993074,00.html?artId=1993074?contType=article?chn=sciHealth
Prez,
If you believe in Races, then you should drop been a believer of the bible.
You can't believe the bible and 'races, you must choose.
Quote from: Saul on July 24, 2010, 09:19:44 PM
Again if you need actual names read this and be informed:
You said "still believe." These scientific speculations are 150 years old and were abandoned when they were properly investigated.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 24, 2010, 09:19:56 PM
There is no doubt that different races share certain genetic elements, most obviously for skin pigment and other characteristics. However, overall genetic variation among members of a race is large compared with genetic variation between different racial groups, which makes genetic difference between races superficial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewontin%27s_Fallacy
Quote from: Scarpia on July 24, 2010, 09:24:55 PM
These scientific speculations are 150 years old and were abandoned when they were properly investigated.
You mean these scientific speculations were abandoned as soon as the political landscape became averse to such theories.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 24, 2010, 09:23:15 PM
Yeah, except for Jews, who appear to be more "equal" then other in the eyes of God.
Francis Parker Yockey classified race as the following:
Thus, race can be understood from a metaphysical point of view, which is where it matters most. However, because the metaphysical manifestation of race is tied to identity, and since identity is build upon a vertical differentiation of mankind, racial mixing can eventually lead to the destruction of any metaphysical manifestation within a given race. When speaking of the European races, the manifestation of the spiritual essence of those races is western civilization. Thus, as the invading foreign elements currently spreading out into our ancestral lands grow bigger and bigger, so too will our racial manifestation diminish, until one day there won't be nothing left of western civilization other then a dim memory. Our history, our arts, our accomplishments. Everything will just disappear in the dust bin of history.
Absolute nonsense.
The first human being Adam didn't belong to any particular 'race'.
Also Abraham wasn't chosen because he was 'white' or 'black, but because he was a saint, a righteous servant of God, that's why he and his descendants were blessed, not because the Jews belong to one particular race or another.
Get your facts straight, and snap out of this racist nonsense, they lead to only one end, death, misery and hopelessness.
Love your fellow human being, love is the key, respect others, believe that God created every human being in his image, and stop the hate, cause it always leads to misfortune.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 24, 2010, 09:24:55 PM
You said "still believe." These scientific speculations are 150 years old and were abandoned when they were properly investigated.
Trust me some still believe it. Dont be naive.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 24, 2010, 09:25:46 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewontin%27s_Fallacy
The only thing disputed is whether use of sophisticated correlations among genetic variations can be used to distinguish between different races. Of course they can. National Geographic will even let you send in a DNA sample and identify which aboriginal population your ancestors came from. That does not change the fact that genetic variation within a "race" is very large compared the the genetic difference between "races." In that sense races are not distinct.
Quote from: Saul on July 24, 2010, 09:30:19 PM
Trust me some still believe it. Dont be naive.
As I said. Uneducated idiots, not scientists.
And with that, my participation in this infantile bickering is at an end.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 24, 2010, 09:34:37 PM
That does not change the fact that genetic variation within a "race" is very large compared the the genetic difference between "races." In that sense races are not distinct.
You still don't get it. By your argument, the fact Berlioz was as different from Chopin as he was from Haydn means there is no such thing as a classical style and a romantic style. That is the nature of the fallacy.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 24, 2010, 09:40:33 PM
You still don't get it. By your argument, the fact Berlioz was as different from Chopin as he was from Haydn means there is no such thing as a classical style and a romantic style. That is the nature of the fallacy.
1) There is no quantitative measure of stylistic distance in music which would allow you to say with any certainty whether Berlioz is closer to Chopin or Haydn. In genetics there is.
2) Dividing lines between different classical music "styles" are also probably dependent on cultural traditions and lack objective reality, just as those of race apparently do. I.e., to say Berlioz and Chopin both belong to the Romantic style gives you no reason to expect that their music will be similar in any particular way.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 24, 2010, 09:36:17 PM
As I said. Uneducated idiots, not scientists.
And with that, my participation in this infantile bickering is at an end.
Those who follow the racist Darwinian theory, still do.
All of them believe that the first humans came from Apes out of Africa.
From the 1998 statement on "Race" by AAA (the American Anthropological Association, not the auto club):
Quote from: AAAWith the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century...it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species.
"Race" [is] an ideology...a body of prejudgments that distorts our ideas about human differences and group behavior. Racial beliefs constitute myths about the diversity in the human species and about the abilities and behavior of people homogenized into "racial" categories. The myths fused behavior and physical features together in the public mind, impeding our comprehension of both biological variations and cultural behavior, implying that both are genetically determined. Racial myths bear no relationship to the reality of human capabilities or behavior. Scientists today find that reliance on such folk beliefs about human differences in research has led to countless errors.
http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm
The only concept of "race" that makes any sense is cultural, with "race" roughly synonymous with "ethnicity" or "culture." The biological concept of "race" is hokum.
Now, can we get back to wondering if Teresa is a real person or a clever troll out to thoroughly discredit every idea "she" advances?
Edited to repair broken quote box and to add emphasis
Quote from: Scarpia on July 24, 2010, 09:56:16 PM
1) There is no quantitative measure of stylistic distance in music which would allow you to say with any certainty whether Berlioz is closer to Chopin or Haydn.
There IS a quantitative measure for stylistic distances which allows us to say that Berlioz IS in fact closer to Chopin then Haydn (hence, why the first two are Romantics while the latter is a Classicist). You would never be able to make a musicological analysis of stylistic differences if that wasn't the case.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 24, 2010, 09:56:16 PM
2) Dividing lines between different classical music "styles" are also probably dependent on cultural traditions and lack objective reality, just as those of race apparently do. I.e., to say Berlioz and Chopin both belong to the Romantic style gives you no reason to expect that their music will be similar in any particular way.
Dividing lines between different musical styles is not dependent on cultural traditions at all. Its based on concrete, stylistic differences which are perfectly measurable. Thus, to say Berlioz and Chopin both belong to the Romantic style implies that their music WILL be similar in several specific ways. That is once again the nature of the fallacy, for any type of classification or grouping is based on commonalities, not differences. It doesn't matter one bit whether Berlioz is as different from Chopin as he is from Haydn, what matters is the stylistic elements which his music
shares with Chopin which cannot be found in Haydn.
Quote from: Teresa on July 21, 2010, 10:56:53 PM
However I am for monitored foreign aid that actually gets to the people in need, controlled immigration, gay marriage
I see you want to destroy the world by supporting Sodom and Gomorrah 'laws' , they also accepted homosexuality as 'natural' and 'acceptable'. The Greeks and the Romans did the same, in fact, in Sparta homosexuality was actually encouraged.
One end has met them all, all these nations got destroyed.
One end has met all ancient empires and shows signs of doing away with all the modern ones. It is the cycle of history, rise and fall, then occasionally rise again. And we can do without you restating why you imagine this has happened.
Mike
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 25, 2010, 04:34:45 AM
From the 1998 statement on "Race" by AAA (the American Anthropological Association, not the auto club):
[quote ]With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century...it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species.
"Race" [is] an ideology...a body of prejudgments that distorts our ideas about human differences and group behavior. Racial beliefs constitute myths about the diversity in the human species and about the abilities and behavior of people homogenized into "racial" categories. The myths fused behavior and physical features together in the public mind, impeding our comprehension of both biological variations and cultural behavior, implying that both are genetically determined. Racial myths bear no relationship to the reality of human capabilities or behavior. Scientists today find that reliance on such folk beliefs about human differences in research has led to countless errors.
Those statements are of course politically motivated and are based once again on the fallacy. Racial grouping is based not on differences, but commonalities. Race is not an ideology but is in fact based on concrete genetic similarities between specific groups which are perfectly measurable, and have been measured many times already. Just observe the language used in the above statement. The implication of racial classification being based on "myths", the idea the entire history of racial science is nothing but a collection of "folk believes". All this condescending reductionism is based entirely on political preference and has nothing to do with real science whatsoever.
Quote from: knight on July 25, 2010, 05:08:31 AM
One end has met all ancient empires and shows signs of doing away with all the modern ones. It is the cycle of history, rise and fall, then occasionally rise again. And we can do without you restating why you imagine this has happened.
Mike
No one would have been erased from earth if they were moral and righteous kingdoms.
Their fall is not a natural cycle, there is a ruler in the universe, dear Knight.
And that is as far as you need to wade into that subtext.
Knight
Quote from: Saul on July 25, 2010, 04:58:01 AM
The Greeks and the Romans did the same, in fact, in Sparta homosexuality was actually encouraged.
Actually, that is not true. Liberals have been revising history in an effort to "normalize" homosexual behavior, which includes the distorted notion that somehow homosexuality was not only accepted, but even promoted in ancient civilizations, particularly Rome and Greece, which due their relative prestige would give even more weight to the homosexual agenda. Of course, it may not come as a surprise that many of the people associated with this trend (Walter Pater, Micheal Foucault, John Boswell, John Winkler, David Halperin) happened to be homosexuals themselves.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 25, 2010, 05:20:28 AM
Actually, that is not true. Liberals have been revising history in an effort to "normalize" homosexual behavior, which includes the distorted notion that somehow homosexuality was not only accepted, but even promoted in ancient civilizations, particularly Rome and Greece, which due their relative prestige would give even more weight to the homosexual agenda. Of course, it may not come as a surprise that many of the people associated with this trend (Walter Pater, Micheal Foucault, John Boswell, John Winkler, David Halperin) happened to be homosexuals themselves.
I have learned this, and read this while studying history. I don't go around and 'invent' things.
Please purchase the book :" Lost Civilizations" and go to page 101 that talks about Greece and Sparta, it says :"Homosexual relationships were encouraged".
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 25, 2010, 05:10:09 AMThose statements are of course politically motivated and are based once again on the fallacy. Racial grouping is based not on differences, but commonalities. Race is not an ideology but is in fact based on concrete genetic similarities between specific groups which are perfectly measurable, and have been measured many times already. Just observe the language used in the above statement. The implication of racial classification being based on "myths", the idea the entire history of racial science is nothing but a collection of "folk believes". All this condescending reductionism is based entirely on political preference and has nothing to do with real science whatsoever.
Your denial of facts (and the logical implications of facts) that belie your prejudices demonstrates that you are just as bigoted and no more rational than the liberal wackos you despise whose beliefs are likewise conditioned by ideology in denial of reality.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 25, 2010, 04:48:43 AM
There IS a quantitative measure for stylistic distances which allows us to say that Berlioz IS in fact closer to Chopin then Haydn (hence, why the first two are Romantics while the latter is a Classicist). You would never be able to make a musicological analysis of stylistic differences if that wasn't the case.
Dividing lines between different musical styles is not dependent on cultural traditions at all. Its based on concrete, stylistic differences which are perfectly measurable. Thus, to say Berlioz and Chopin both belong to the Romantic style implies that their music WILL be similar in several specific ways. That is once again the nature of the fallacy, for any type of classification or grouping is based on commonalities, not differences. It doesn't matter one bit whether Berlioz is as different from Chopin as he is from Haydn, what matters is the stylistic elements which his music shares with Chopin which cannot be found in Haydn.
Quantitative by definition means measurable and able to represent as a number. Can you provide the exact percentage of how Romantic Berlioz, Haydn, and Chopin are, as well as the specific measures and observed values used to derive them? If you can do that in such a way that anyone else can come up with the exact same results, than I would believe the quantitative argument.
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 25, 2010, 05:29:38 AM
Your denial of facts (and the logical implications of facts)
The logical implications of these facts is based on a fallacy. Is this really that difficult to understand? The people behind those statements are 100% politically motivated. They are distorting logic in an effort to perpetrate a Marxist interpretation of scientific fact. Even the language they use is woven in newspeak tactics.
You usually claim history as your reference point; but certainly as far as Sparta is concerned, you prefer to ignore the traces of history.
Rome generally was more ambivalent towards the issue.
Mike
I'm getting a kick out of this thread. It's like what the pop music folks call a "mash up."
So are Detroit muscle cars from the '60s better than classic European sports cars of the same vintage? Please quantify your answers.
Some people here won't be able to do that; because the Bible and Ancient History are silent on the topic.
Mike
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 25, 2010, 05:54:11 AM
So are Detroit muscle cars from the '60s better than classic European sports cars of the same vintage?
Another fallacy. How cute. The correct answer of course is that the distinction between Detroit muscle cars and their European counterpart is a social construct, and is therefore meaningless.
Quote from: knight on July 25, 2010, 05:58:38 AM
Some people here won't be able to do that; because the Bible and Ancient History are silent on the topic.
;D
But what about Jim-Bob's
Bible of Automotive History?
And whose "progressive" state best exemplified the Teresan ideal: Stalin, Tito, Mao, Castro, or Pol Pot?
Quote from: jowcol on July 25, 2010, 05:31:19 AM
Quantitative by definition means measurable and able to represent as a number. Can you provide the exact percentage of how Romantic Berlioz, Haydn, and Chopin are, as well as the specific measures and observed values used to derive them? If you can do that in such a way that anyone else can come up with the exact same results, than I would believe the quantitative argument.
Pfff. So now you are saying there is no reliable way to make a stylistic distinction between a classicist and a romantic composer because their stylistic differences are not quantifiable in a mathematical sense, or so you assume. The implication is laughable in itself, but if you want a numerical distinction, lets start with a definition of the musical language of the Romantic era:
QuoteComposers of the Romantic period sought to fuse the large structural harmonic planning demonstrated by earlier masters such as Haydn, and Mozart with further chromatic innovations, in order to achieve greater fluidity and contrast, and to meet the needs of longer works. Chromaticism grew more varied, as did dissonances and their resolution. Composers modulated to increasingly remote keys, and their music often prepared the listener less for these modulations than the music of the classical era. The properties of the diminished seventh and related chords, which facilitate modulation to many keys, were also extensively exploited. Composers such as Beethoven, and later Richard Wagner, expanded the harmonic language with previously-unused chords, or innovative chord progressions.
Some composers analogized music to poetry and its rhapsodic and narrative structures, while creating a more systematic basis for the composing and performing of concert music. Previous practices, such as the sonata form, continued in use, and composers extended them.[vague] There was an increasing focus on melodies and themes, as well as an explosion in the composition of songs.
The greater harmonic elusiveness and fluidity, the longer melodies, poesis as the basis of expression, and the use of literary inspirations were all present prior to this period. However, some composers of the Romantic period adopted them as the central pursuit of music itself. Composers were also influenced by technological advances, including an increase in the range and power of the piano and the improved chromatic abilities and greater projection of the instruments of the symphony orchestra.
Ok, so we have chromaticism, unusual chord progressions, increased modulation, a greater emphasis on musical structures based on underlying narratives, often based on direct literary sources, and so forth. Using those parameters, we can formulate that Berlioz was 100% romantic, Chopin only 80% romantic while Haydn was perhaps 10% Romantic. Here's your precious numerical quantification.
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 25, 2010, 06:04:40 AM
;D
But what about Jim-Bob's Bible of Automotive History?
I also forgot about 'Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance'. But JDP has rulled you topic out; so that's that. 8)
Mike
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 25, 2010, 06:14:14 AM
Pfff. So now you are saying there is no reliable way to make a stylistic distinction between a classicist and a romantic composer because their stylistic differences are not quantifiable in a mathematical sense, or so you assume. The implication is laughable in itself, but if you want a numerical distinction, lets start with a definition of the musical language of the Romantic era:
Ok, so we have chromaticism, unusual chord progressions, increased modulation, a greater emphasis on musical structures based on underlying narratives, often based on direct literary sources, and so forth. Using those parameters, we can formulate that Berlioz was 100% romantic, Chopin only 80% romantic while Haydn was perhaps 10% Romantic. Here's your precious numerical quantification.
Thanks for the answer-- it certainly was 'precious'!
"Reductio ad absurdum, which Euclid loved so much, is one of a mathematician's finest weapons. It is a far finer gambit than any chess gambit: a chess player may offer the sacrifice of a pawn or even a piece, but a mathematician offers the game"
G. H. Hardy
Actually, I wish to thank your for confirming my point, and I apologize for the backhanded approach I used to draw it out. That yes, there are some objective nameable aspects of music that can be used to support classifications of music by style, and we would all be better off if, in our discussions, we took more pains provide the types of information that you had provided in your response.
The fact remains, however, that there will remain a deal of interpretation beyond that, which is why we are entertained be debates over who was the "first romantic" or "first modern" composer. Your well written and well -reasoned reply shows that a purely objective, measurable, deterministic method is not possible, and that the degree of "Romanticness" is not objectively quantifiable, but thar there are some major, objectively verifiable characteristics that we associate with the "Romantic Period"
Unless, of course, like a good match student, you can show me how your derived the numbers...
There are certainly tools and approaches to classifying styles of music, I fully agree, but
One thing we might agree on then is that the classification of racial characteristics is by far more accurate then the classification of musical styles. This fact of course does not in anyway negate my analogy since accuracy in differentiation is irrelevant to the possibility of classification.
Quote from: knight on July 25, 2010, 06:30:14 AM
I also forgot about 'Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance'. But JDP has rulled you topic out; so that's that. 8)
Ahhhh...but since Pirsig's book is accurately subtitled
An Inquiry into Values, it actually addresses the heart of the matter raised by Teresa in starting this thread. Inquiring into the values we actually hold and those we wish to hold, and into the rationality (such as it is) of their consistency with the hard facts of nature and the hard lessons of history, is the critical starting point for both political and aesthetic inquiry...which is nearly always overlooked in our haste to rationalize our own prejudices and beat others into submission with them!
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 25, 2010, 06:41:26 AM
One thing we might agree on then is that the classification of racial characteristics is by far more accurate then the classification of musical styles. This fact of course does not in anyway negate my analogy since accuracy in differentiation is irrelevant to the possibility of classification.
Or we might not. I'm 1/2 Scottish, 3/8 English, 1/16th German and 1/16th Cherokee. How white am I?
Given my continual cultural cross-pollenation of other cultures I show on this forum, how white do I act? What is the mathematical correlation between my degree of whiteness in terms of phenotype and behavior?
How well does a Caucasian tobacco farmer who only listens to popular C&W and doesn't read anything more challenging than USA today represent the values and arts of Western Civilization, as opposed to an Asian-American, Indian American, Hispanic American, or African American who performs in a widely respected symphony orchestra, or is writing a PhD thesis on Aristotle? Are these also quantifiable? Who is the most white, and who is doing the best job to preserve western culture?
Quote from: kishnevi on July 24, 2010, 07:32:05 PM
Yes. But it was made worse by government intervention (for clarity's sake, I'm referring to the Hoover administration, not Roosevelt).
Please provide the government intervention that the Hoover Administration undertook that made it worse. Not the Fed, mind you, but the Hoover Administration.
Quote from: kishnevi on July 24, 2010, 07:32:05 PM
But there were actually a lot of people who did not lose their jobs, and were not left with nothing. Not every bank in the country failed, and plenty of businesses stayed open. Why should we protect them?
Are you still referring to the Great Depression, or now?
Quote from: kishnevi on July 24, 2010, 07:32:05 PM
What I am saying is that the results of taking a risk should remain with the people who took the risk.
That's great, but what if it doesn't? What if institutions collapse and freeze the entire credit market? Then everyone is impacted. Ideally this would never happen, but it does. What should be done then?
Also, as it pertains to your earlier assertions, can you please let everyone here know how long it takes for markets to clear "all at once" (your phrase)? And can your provide historical examples of this occurring during a financial crisis?
Quote from: kishnevi on July 24, 2010, 07:32:05 PM
To which I will only respond with a couple of questions: how would we determine what the correct amount is (or even if there was a correct amount), and who makes the decision. And why should we only give a partial bailout? If I'm bailing out to the tune of sixty cents on the dollar or whatever, why shouldn't I do it at a hundred cents to the dollar?
The recent bailout ended up more as capital infusions, did it not, that reestablished the financial soundness of the institutions according to standard accounting practices. There was a lot of talk of pricing the underlying assets, but that was abandoned to a large extent. Generally speaking, though, pricing would be established based on market rates, which in the case of real estate would be set at either the projected liquidation amount of the appraised collateral value with disposition timelines factored in, or a percentage of UPB with disposition timelines factored in, would it not? That's how the players in this space are pricing the assets now. Different assets would require different pricing models.
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 24, 2010, 07:58:54 AMhow do you feel about Elizabeth Warren then?
That's like asking how I feel about Neel Kashkari. I don't know a great deal about her. Maybe I'll be able to form a better opinion if there are hearings about her possible appointment to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Generally speaking, I don't follow the actions of every government functionary.
Quote from: jowcol on July 25, 2010, 06:56:39 AM
I'm 1/2 Scottish, 3/8 English, 1/16th German and 1/16th Cherokee.
Ah...a typical American (though many of us also claim forebears of Spanish, Bantu, Hindu, Arab, Athabaskan, Nilotic, Chinese, Polynesian, Scandinavian, Slavic, even Basque descent!). Personally, I think the cultural and ethnic diversity of Americans is among our greatest strengths, treasures, and delights...though as long as we keep electing demagogues who aim to divide and rule us by focusing on our differences instead of our similarities, the more likely we are to disintegrate rather than meld into one nation, and the more likely we are to lose the blessings that all too many of us take for granted.
Quote from: kishnevi on July 24, 2010, 07:12:17 PMAs I understand the situation, inflation hasn't hit because most of the money isn't actually in circulation; the various banks are keeping it on deposit with the Fed instead of actually making loans with it, etc. But I do know that plenty of the things I buy weekly at the grocery, etc. have gone up in price at least a little bit over the last year.
Also, you may not be aware of easy it is for the gov't to manipulate the CPI by changing the items in the basket of goods they use to calculate it. I work for a major department store. During the 90s , a woman would come in once a month and check some items to see what the prices were, and if any prices had changed; this was part of the research involved in determining the CPI.
Still going on about the money supply? Can you please answer my question from earlier, and if I missed it, reanswer it? Which measure of the money supply has doubled?
Now I notice that you said that the price of plenty of things you buy has gone up over the last year. Is that a new situation, or have you noticed that before?
As to CPI, of course the components are changed over time. How else would prices be tracked over decades? People do not use the same household items they did fifty years ago, for instance, so substitutes must be found. I dare say that the common items have even changed perceptibly over the past decade.
And the CPI can be tricky. Take the case of a computer. Take computer A, which ten years ago was near top of the line and cost $1500 and take computer B, which is near top of the line top today and costs $2000. That's a 33% price increase, right? Well, if the computer has 25 times the processing power, 30 times the storage, dozens of free software titles that did not exist, and comes with ancillaries that are far superior to what existed ten years ago, is that really inflation?
Your post very clearly implies that the government manipulates CPI to make numbers look good, which is a serious implication, so something more substantive should be offered.
Why this whole race thing is flawed and false.
Those racists believe that Jews are not 'white'... even though I don't hold of the concept of 'races', still their assertion is based on complete hate bereft of facts and reality.
If these following Jews are not 'White' just like any other European, then all these racists must be immediately institutionalized in mental hospitals for the mentally deranged, and delusional.
I personally was never treated by anyone ever other then a regular white person. My entire family came from Europe and we can trace our European background for 2600 years. That's HOW LONG Jews have lived in the Republic of Georgia. Also many of my family members and relatives have blonde hair, blue eyes, and fair skin, and can't be distinguished by any means from other Europeans.
This further demonstrates the delusional aspect of the entire Race thing, forgetting completely, that physical features has to do with the climate different people were exposed to for such a long time, and has nothing to do with superiority. Don't forget that some of the greatest and powerful civilizations were in Africa, they were more advanced then most people, and they had great empires that ruled all over the world, hardly an inferior, motif.
Some Jews:
Jennifer Connelly
(http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Jennifer-Connelly-jennifer-connelly-205624_1280_1024.jpg)
Natalie Portman
(http://www.scrup.com.au/images/NataliePortman/NataliePortman3.jpg)
Scarlett Johansson
(http://meaningfuldistractions.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/scarlett-johansson-grammy-16.jpg)
Bar Refaeli
(http://cdn.buzznet.com/media/jj1//2009/06/refaeli-young/bar-refaeli-young-hollywood-awards-2009-09.jpg)
Esti Ginzburg
(http://i7.tinypic.com/20ztrah.jpg)
Nina Brosh
(http://www.ynetnews.com/PicServer2/20122005/780625/vik_wa.jpg)
Quote from: Saul on July 25, 2010, 07:34:43 AM
Some Jews:
(http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Jennifer-Connelly-jennifer-connelly-205624_1280_1024.jpg)(http://www.scrup.com.au/images/NataliePortman/NataliePortman3.jpg)(http://meaningfuldistractions.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/scarlett-johansson-grammy-16.jpg)(http://cdn.buzznet.com/media/jj1//2009/06/refaeli-young/bar-refaeli-young-hollywood-awards-2009-09.jpg)(http://i7.tinypic.com/20ztrah.jpg)(http://www.ynetnews.com/PicServer2/20122005/780625/vik_wa.jpg)
Saul offers some powerful arguments that should convince even the most ardent racists of the virtues of miscegenation!
Quote from: jowcol on July 25, 2010, 06:56:39 AM
How well does a Caucasian tobacco farmer who only listens to popular C&W and doesn't read anything more challenging than USA today represent the values and arts of Western Civilization, as opposed to an Asian-American, Indian American, Hispanic American, or African American who performs in a widely respected symphony orchestra, or is writing a PhD thesis on Aristotle? Are these also quantifiable? Who is the most white, and who is doing the best job to preserve western culture?
It depends on how you define "civilization". If you accept the Spenglerian model, there are going to be obvious differences between civilization as a
breathing, living entity, and civilization as defined by an inert materialistic world outlook. In the latter sense, race is obviously not going to make much of a difference. In the first instance, race means almost everything.
Quote from: Saul on July 25, 2010, 07:34:43 AM
Why this whole race thing is flawed and false.
Those racists believe that Jews are not 'white'... even though I don't hold of the concept of 'races', still their assertion is based on complete hate bereft of facts and reality.
If these following Jews are not 'White' just like any other European, then all these racists must be immediately be institutionalized in mental hospitals for the mentally deranged, and delusional.
I personally was never treated by anyone ever other then a regular white person. My entire family came from Europe and we can trace our European background for 2600 years. That's HOW LONG Jews have lived in the Republic of Georgia. Also many of my family members and relatives have blonde hair, blue eyes, and fair skin, and can't be distinguished by any means from other Europeans.
This further demonstrates the delusional aspect of the entire Race thing, forgetting completely, that physical features has to do with the climate different people were exposed to for such a long time, and has nothing to do with superiority. Don't forget that some of the greatest and powerful civilizations were in Africa, they were more advanced then most people, and they had great empires that ruled all over the world, hardly an inferior, motif.
Well....
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Fzq94YVbHHM/Ssz3_LLA9JI/AAAAAAAAjY8/s8tKFxr8RO0/s400/stars_plastic_surgery_12.jpg)
Jokes aside, you are making the fallacy of confusing race with aesthetics. Phenotypes can of course be used to indicate racial grouping but racial differentiation in a
metaphysical sense is truly a question of soul more then bodily characteristics. Are Jews metaphysically European? Yes and no, but i don't feel like getting into that argument at the moment.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 25, 2010, 08:13:22 AM
Well....
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Fzq94YVbHHM/Ssz3_LLA9JI/AAAAAAAAjY8/s8tKFxr8RO0/s400/stars_plastic_surgery_12.jpg)
Jokes aside, you are making the fallacy of confusing race with aesthetics. Phenotypes can of course be used to indicate racial grouping but racial differentiation in a metaphysical sense is truly a question of soul more then bodily characteristics. Are Jews metaphysically European? Yes and no, but i don't feel like getting into that argument at the moment.
Lol, your taking Johansson the tenager, and comparing it to a recent photo.
So what's your point? she still looks way more stunning then the regular white person in the street, even whiter then most whites.
If Scarlett Johansson the Jewish Beauty is not White, then there are no white people in the world:
(http://www.beautyden.com/hairpics/scarlett-johansson.jpg)
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 25, 2010, 07:52:54 AM
It depends on how you define "civilization". If you accept the Spenglerian model, there are going to be obvious differences between civilization as a breathing, living entity, and civilization as defined by an inert materialistic world outlook. In the latter sense, race is obviously not going to make much of a difference. In the first instance, race means almost everything.
But if the former is an abstraction, (since it cannot be objectively and deterministically defined ) why drag the material science of genetics into it? That would be a materialistic outlook- ergo, in your own words, "race is obviously not going to make much of a difference".
Quote from: Saul on July 25, 2010, 08:16:04 AM
Lol, your taking Johansson the tenager, and comparing it to a recent photo.
Mmmh, no. That's pre-surgery and after surgery.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 25, 2010, 08:19:26 AM
Mmmh, no. That's pre-surgery and after surgery.
She has never done a surgery. You're dreaming.
If Scarlett Johansson the Jewish Beauty is not White, then there are no white people in the world:
And if you want me to give you a huge list Jews like her, be my guest...
(http://www.beautyden.com/hairpics/scarlett-johansson.jpg)
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 25, 2010, 07:52:54 AM
It depends on how you define "civilization". If you accept the Spenglerian model, there are going to be obvious differences between civilization as a breathing, living entity, and civilization as defined by an inert materialistic world outlook. In the latter sense, race is obviously not going to make much of a difference. In the first instance, race means almost everything.
But a civilization isn't
literally a living, breathing entity. Even someone as devoted to lifeless abstractions as you appear to be should see that civilization is at best
figuratively a living, breathing entity. That is, it isn't alive, it doesn't breathe, and it's an abstract entity. It's typical of 19th century philosophers to mistake ideas like this for the concrete, so you would read about the Absolute, and what kind of a
thing it is. What kind is it really? The
nothing kind.
Incidentally, you might notice that it's remarkably easy to kill people for the Aryan race, or the Tutsis, or this god vs that one (usually and falsely portrayed as one version of the "one true" vs another, false because no distinction exists there). Do you know why? I do. It's because when you escalate a dispute to the metaphysical level (gods, races, etc.), no fact of the matter can help to adjudicate. Nothing, that is, except force. Only violence can render a verdict between absolutists.
You are correct that we have a choice about how to view civilization, so let's invent one that does less harm than yours. We invented civilization, so we are free to say what it is, within reason.
(http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif) We can say that the concept of civilization we want ought to include people of different races and beliefs, not only because that's a good way for people to live (people think so), but because they are less motivated to kill each other if the reasons for doing so are disabled. I'm talking about the reasons that can't be compromised away.
Quote from: jowcol on July 25, 2010, 08:16:26 AM
But if the former is an abstraction, (since it cannot be objectively and deterministically defined ) why drag the material science of genetics into it? That would be a materialistic outlook- ergo, in your own words, "race is obviously not going to make much of a difference".
Because people who object to the idea of race usually start by denying the physical reality of race. You can argue that the nation of America is an abstraction as well, but if you were to replace every single American with a population composed entirely of Japanese people, there is no question the national character of America would change drastically almost overnight. But then, if you were to deny the existence of any real differences between the American people and the Japanese, there would be no leg to stand on if you wanted to object to such a cultural change.
Hey Prez,
Did this Jew considered in Europe as"The most beautiful woman in Europe" also went through a surgery?
LOL where do you get off?
Hedy Lamarr
Wikipedia:
"Lamarr was born Hedwig Eva Maria Kiesler in Vienna, Austria-Hungary, to Jewish parents Gertrud (née Lichtwitz), a pianist and Budapest native who came from the "Jewish haute bourgeoisie", and Lemberg-born Emil Kiesler, a successful bank director.[2][3] She studied ballet and piano at age 10. When she worked with Max Reinhardt in Berlin, he called her the "most beautiful woman in Europe". Soon the teenage girl played major roles in German movies, alongside stars like Heinz Rühmann and Hans Moser".
(http://www.odessaoffice.com/wireless/Hedy_Lamarr.jpg)
(http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/6900000/Hedy-Lamarr-classic-movies-6996216-1351-1674.jpg)
(http://www.garboforever.com/Bilder/Garbo-Stories/Hedy_Lamarr.jpg)
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 25, 2010, 08:13:22 AM
Jokes aside, you are making the fallacy of confusing race with aesthetics. Phenotypes can of course be used to indicate racial grouping but racial differentiation in a metaphysical sense is truly a question of soul more then bodily characteristics.
If you are concerned about race from a metaphysical sense, as you stated above, that it is "more truly a " question of soul more then bodily characteristics. ", and not focusing on materialistic aspects, then physical differentiation is moot, is it not?
It's nice to hear you echo the spirit of Dr. King's "I have a Dream" speech, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 25, 2010, 06:04:40 AM
;D
And whose "progressive" state best exemplified the Teresan ideal: Stalin, Tito, Mao, Castro, or Pol Pot?
Actually none of these as they are all
Dictatorships (Yuck)!
The IDEAL is completely Democracy (one person, one vote) with no Corporate involvement and a complete
Bill of Rights including the Economic Bill of Rights. This can ONLY be done and maintained under a democracy. Your equating econicomic democracy with twisted dictatorships who abuse their people is an insult beyond measure. >:(
Quote from: Teresa on July 25, 2010, 02:10:13 PM
Actually none of these as they are all Dictatorships (Yuck)!
The IDEAL is completely Democracy (one person, one vote) with no Corporate involvement and a complete Bill of Rights including the Economic Bill of Rights. This can ONLY be done and maintained under a democracy. Your equating econicomic democracy with twisted dictatorships who abuse their people is an insult beyond measure. >:(
It has never occurred to you that the requirement that every person must be given a job can only be enforced in a total dictatorship? Who is going to enforce this rule in a "democracy?"
Quote from: Teresa on July 25, 2010, 02:10:13 PMActually none of these as they are all Dictatorships (Yuck)!
Ah, Tito it is. (The yuck gave it away.)
Quote from: Todd on July 25, 2010, 02:38:51 PM
Ah, Tito it is. (The yuck gave it away.)
Now that Michael's gone, it's Jermaine.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 25, 2010, 02:22:02 PM
It has never occurred to you that the requirement that every person must be given a job can only be enforced in a total dictatorship? Who is going to enforce this rule in a "democracy?"
WRONG FULL DEMOCRACY IS REQUIRED (one person, one vote, uncorrupted by corporate involvement)
WITH A FULL ECONOMIC BILL OF RIGHTS!The government just as it enforces all other rules and laws, since this is the most important one of all!
Here is how to get 100% employment NOW!
At 10% Unemployment all one would need to do is adjust the workweek from 40 hours to 36 hours.
At 20% Unemployment all one would need to do is adjust the workweek from 40 hours to 32 hours.
from: An Economic Bill of Rights (http://www.greenparty.org/Platform.php)
"30-Hour Work Week: A 6-hour day with no cut in pay for the bottom 80% of the pay scale."Of course with a 30 hour work week we would have a labor shortage but that might be good for workers. With a labor shortage we can gain back the losses given over to past three decades. In the 1960's a family of four could be supported by one income, now it requires two.
I'm reminded of the poor gal who, when arrested for writing checks with insufficient funds to cover her drafts, protested indignantly "How can I be possibly be out of money? I still have plenty of checks!"
Quote from: Todd on July 25, 2010, 07:13:03 AM
Still going on about the money supply? Can you please answer my question from earlier, and if I missed it, reanswer it? Which measure of the money supply has doubled?
Not being an economist, I don't keep that sort of information on file. But all that money the government put into TARP and the stimulus package--wasn't that a substantial addition to the money supply? Approximately equal to the amount of money already in circulation.
Quote
Now I notice that you said that the price of plenty of things you buy has gone up over the last year. Is that a new situation, or have you noticed that before?
Prices increased sharply roughly two and a half years-three and a half years ago, then remained stable until about a year ago, when they began to rise, and still are rising. The rate of increase is not as sharp as it was during the prior increase, but is steadier and seems to be lasting longer.
I am, btw, talking about prices of a loaf of white bread, a box of brand name cereal, etc.
Quote
As to CPI, of course the components are changed over time. How else would prices be tracked over decades? People do not use the same household items they did fifty years ago, for instance, so substitutes must be found. I dare say that the common items have even changed perceptibly over the past decade.
The instance I gave was one in which a lesser quality item was substituted for the item originally in the "basket of goods", even though the equivalent to the original item was readily available on the shelf next to the substitute.
An analogy:
Suppose your local grocer offered a loaf of premium bread for $2.00. It also offered a loaf of regular enriched white bread for $1.50. At a certain point in time, it discontinued the premium bread and replaced with a "new improved" version--say it was now enriched with calcium and some of the ingredients were changed to improve the flavor--and priced at $2.18. I think most people would say the "new improved" version was the equivalent which should be substituted for the old version in CPI measures. But the government decided instead to use the white bread as the substitute.
And the CPI can be tricky. Take the case of a computer. Take computer A, which ten years ago was near top of the line and cost $1500 and take computer B, which is near top of the line top today and costs $2000. That's a 33% price increase, right? Well, if the computer has 25 times the processing power, 30 times the storage, dozens of free software titles that did not exist, and comes with ancillaries that are far superior to what existed ten years ago, is that really inflation?
Quote
Your post very clearly implies that the government manipulates CPI to make numbers look good, which is a serious implication, so something more substantive should be offered.
I'm giving details of something that occurred directly in my purview during the Clinton Administration, as evidence that manipulation was done in the past. Since our store has apparently been dropped from the research route, I can't tell you more firsthand. But obviously manipulation is possible, and I wouldn't trust the CPI unless I had confirmed that no such manipulation had occurred.
As to your hypothetical about the computer--I would say that for purposes of determinging the CPI, a baseline, lower end computer shoudl be used. For instance, a computer that could allow for average gaming, internet, and home business use.
Quote from: Teresa on July 25, 2010, 03:30:18 PM
Here is how to get 100% employment NOW!
At 10% Unemployment all one would need to do is adjust the workweek from 40 hour to 36 hours.
At 20% Unemployment all one would need to do is adjust the workweek from 40 hour to 32 hours.
from: An Economic Bill of Rights (http://www.greenparty.org/Platform.php)
"30-Hour Work Week: A 6-hour day with no cut in pay for the bottom 80% of the pay scale."
Of course with a 30 hour work week we would have a labor shortage but that might be good for workers. With a labor shortage we can gain back the losses given over to past three decades. In the 1960's a family of four could be supported by one income, now it requires two.
Shorter workweek is a good thing. Technology and increased efficiency is allowing us to have more free time. We should use that opportunity. Even if we earn less money, our quality of life will improve when we spend more time with our families and friends instead of working. That's also ecological when we don't spend that much money on things we don't need.
The problem of unemployment is much more difficult than that. We have lowered the costs of work so much that now we have lots of people without workmanship who are too talentless/lazy to support themselves working. Two possible solutions:
1) We raise the costs of work. This means that prices of products and services will raise. Now we can hire ineffective workforce paying them less than others and these people can still support themselves with work.
2) We adopt general income system. Now talentless people can increase their incomes working when there's work to be done somewhere. The pay can be low since most of their incomes is general income.
Economic score: +5.16
Social score: +5.91
Your score pegs you as economically capitalist and socially authoritarian.
Capitalists generally support an open free market and lower taxes, but also support government restrictions on blatantly abusive industry. Capitalists also often differ from their more extreme peers in that, while they may support significantly lower taxes, they are less apt to support complete elimination of taxation or near-complete elimination of government.
Social authoritarians generally believe that the country is moving toward immorality and that the government should assure it does not. Social authoritarians oftentimes believe that the government should be operated in a religious context, or at least with heavy consideration of moral values.
I certainly agree being labeled capitalist but I strongly object to being authoritarian. Or is this what they call now someone who supports a free and moral society?
Quote from: Florestan on July 26, 2010, 02:15:51 AM
I certainly agree being labeled capitalist but I strongly object to being authoritarian. Or is this what they call now someone who supports a free and moral society?
Perhaps you don't see how morality and freedom are sometimes in contradiction?
Quote from: Florestan on July 26, 2010, 02:15:51 AM
Economic score: +5.16
Social score: +5.91
Your score pegs you as economically capitalist and socially authoritarian.
I certainly agree being labeled capitalist but I strongly object to being authoritarian. Or is this what they call now someone who supports a free and moral society?
It might be how you answered other questions, as I answered this question with
Agree
And checked the box
This is a critical issue to me.
12. The government should work to reduce children's exposure to offensive radio and television content.My Social score: -6.09 and it pegged me as socially libertarian.
Social libertarians generally believe that the government should not judge morality, and are generally against the illegalization of things that do not directly affect other people in a negative way. Many strong social libertarians may also be social progressives, favoring legislation to correct what they see as socially backwards governmental regulation, although some simply wish for the government to make little judgment on social matters.So this test is not perfect as you know I am anti-porn, anti-excessive violence and sex in media even for adults as I believe it is a detriment to society as a whole. However I am pro-gay marriage as I have known gays and they are regular moral people and I believe deserve marriage as much as anyone. Indeed the ones I know are religious despite several bible passages against men lying with men. I attended a gay wedding of a friend at a gay Church. I am reminded of Christ saying to love the sinner and hate the sin. And those without to sin to throw the first stone. In addition we are all sinners, so we cannot judge others, indeed it is blasphemy to do so. Thus I am for gay marriage, if they are going to be together I would rather they be monogamous.
I am also for the legalization. or at the very least the decriminalization of drugs. As we are never going to win the war on drugs and it just increases crimes of every type. The legalization will mean billions of tax dollars drastically needed to pay down the debt. I do think drugs should be sold in state drug stores so that the government has control of the distribution.
So in short the test is not perfect. :)
Quote from: 71 dB on July 26, 2010, 02:26:53 AM
Perhaps you don't see how morality and freedom are sometimes in contradiction?
Morality and freedom are never in contradiction since you can't have one without the other. It's morality and libertinism that are in contradiction.
Quote from: Teresa on July 26, 2010, 03:18:49 AM
It might be how you answered other questions,
I am against gay marriage for the same reasons JdP stated. I think abortion should be legal only in a few cases (i.e. rape or when the mother's life is threatened) and it should be paid by the person who wants it (or her relatives, or private charities) not by the taxpayers at large. In sexual matters I believe that what two or more people do in their private home is no business for the government but I also believe government has a duty to promote and encourage public decency and prevent and discourage public immorality. In short, I am for personal responsibility and restraint and freedom under law. How authoritarian is that?
Quote from: Florestan on July 26, 2010, 03:35:59 AM
I am against gay marriage for the same reasons JdP stated. I think abortion should be legal only in a few cases (i.e. rape or when the mother's life is threatened) and it should be paid by the person who wants it (or her relatives, or private charities) not by the taxpayers at large. In sexual matters I believe that what two or more people do in their private home is no business for the government but I also believe government has a duty to promote and encourage public decency and prevent and discourage public immorality. In short, I am for personal responsibility and restraint and freedom under law. How authoritarian is that?
Not really to me, but
authoritarianism is in the eyes of the beholder. After all my strong
anti-porn, anti-violence stance has been called
authoritarian by at least ten members here. Before I actually knew a few gay people and knew someone who had to make the hard decision to go through an abortion, I believed much as you do, so I do respect your beliefs in these social issues.
Quote from: Florestan on July 26, 2010, 03:21:48 AM
Morality and freedom are never in contradiction since you can't have one without the other. It's morality and libertinism that are in contradiction.
No matter how you define moral, it will contradict a certain forms of freedom. For example, Teresa thinks porn is amoral. That kind of morality removes freedom to consume porn. The essence of this question is the fact that any moral system bans certain things, hence limiting freedom.
This is not a big problem if we create such a moral system that limits freedom minimally and at the same time we accept the freedom that is left.
I came to the conclusion that Teresa's writings are nothing but a fountain of hogwash.
Therefore, I will concentrate responding to those who are willing to listen. I promise you guys, that talking to her about politics is a total waste of time.
I wouldn't mind talking to her about, cooking, baking, shopping, travel, and many other issues that wont take us into politics. This is the topic where she unfortunately, losses all sense of logic, and wisdom.
Its pointless to discuss these things with her, she is not willing to change a single millimeter, of her rock solid rubbish opinions that make no sense, and that's a shame.
Quote from: 71 dB on July 26, 2010, 04:24:10 AM
No matter how you define moral, it will contradict a certain forms of freedom. For example, Teresa thinks porn is amoral. That kind of morality removes freedom to consume porn.
Porn should be available only to those who want it. The current level of public pornography is appalling.
Quote from: Saul on July 26, 2010, 04:45:10 AM
I came to the conclusion that Teresa's writings are nothing but a fountain of hogwash.
Therefore, I will concentrate responding to those who are willing to listen. I promise you guys, that talking to her about politics is a total waste of time.
I wouldn't mind talking to her about, cooking, baking, shopping, travel, and many other issues that wont take us into politics. This is the topic where she unfortunately, losses all sense of logic, and wisdom.
Its pointless to discuss these things with her, she is not willing to change a single millimeter, of her rock solid rubbish opinions that make no sense, and that's a shame.
Well said, Saul. Although I should warn you that her opinions on music and audio equipment are equally bizarre and intractable, so you want to avoid those altogether. I'm pretty sure you will be hard-pressed to find something of mutual interest where any opinion offered is not already set in stone. Just sayin'... :)
8)
Quote from: Florestan on July 26, 2010, 04:45:35 AM
Porn should be available only to those who want it. The current level of public pornography is appalling.
Supply meeting demand. Everyone wants it, excerpt you apparently.
Quote from: Saul on July 26, 2010, 04:45:10 AM
Its pointless to discuss these things with her, she is not willing to change a single millimeter, of her rock solid rubbish opinions that make no sense, and that's a shame.
Funny, this is what I think about your opinions Saul.
Quote from: Florestan on July 26, 2010, 04:45:35 AM
Porn should be available only to those who want it. The current level of public pornography is appalling.
How do you define public pornography?
Quote from: Teresa on July 26, 2010, 03:45:17 AM...authoritarianism is in the eyes of the beholder. After all my strong anti-porn, anti-violence stance has been called authoritarian by at least ten members here.
No, an authoritarian is someone who wants everyone's behavior (everyone
else, at least!) to be controlled by an authority. No one regards you as authoritarian because you disapprove of porn and violence, but rather because your solution to these issues (and every other issue!) is to empower an authoritarian government to
force everyone to conform to your wishes.
One of the most obvious lessons of history and human nature--reinforced by the 20th Century's record of horror--is that power attracts those who would abuse it. Time and again, well-intentioned idealists who are woefully ignorant of history, human nature, and their own dark sides have sought to create utopias through behavior control enforced by a strong authority. The method itself is flawed. You cannot force people to be wise, to make morally intelligent decisions. Force creates its own resistance to force. And when you create institutions with the power to compel others' behavior, you can be sure that the most ruthless and depraved will seek that power and use it for bad ends.
The "political matrix" test in this thread might be of some limited value (very limited, given the nature of the questions!) in identifying your beliefs, but it has no value whatsoever in determining whether those beliefs have any basis in reality. Yours do not. They indicate serious deficiencies in basic understanding of economics, political science, human nature, morality, and so on. Your heart may be in the right place, but your head lags far behind.
The personal liberties, individual rights, and human dignity you correctly value are not compatible with the authoritarian economic and political systems you support. Without grasping that elemental fact, you imagine we have a choice between a real and imperfect (but improving) social structure like our own, and a theoretically ideal but practically impossible idealistic fantasy. When comparing reality with fantasy, of course reality suffers. But when comparing the reality of daily life for even our worst off citizens with the reality of daily life for all but the ruling elite in the REAL (not imaginary) "Progressive" states of the 20th Century, it should be bloody obvious even to the slowest of learners which system is truly compassionate and democratic and promotes real liberty and freedom and human dignity.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 26, 2010, 05:14:27 AM
Well said, Saul. Although I should warn you that her opinions on music and audio equipment are equally bizarre and intractable, so you want to avoid those altogether. I'm pretty sure you will be hard-pressed to find something of mutual interest where any opinion offered is not already set in stone. Just sayin'... :)
8)
I feel like I'm in an episode of the Twilight Zone.
Quote from: Philoctetes on July 26, 2010, 05:44:47 AM
I feel like I'm in an episode of the Twilight Zone.
Picture if you will... it's just that we've been over those topics already, so I am already prepared to throw all my CD's in the trash and get SACD's, and also to make sure that there is only loud & exciting music from the late Romantic recorded on the new SACD's. Why fight it? ;)
8)
Quote from: Saul on July 26, 2010, 04:45:10 AM
I came to the conclusion that Teresa's writings are nothing but a fountain of hogwash.
Therefore, I will concentrate responding to those who are willing to listen. I promise you guys, that talking to her about politics is a total waste of time.
I wouldn't mind talking to her about, cooking, baking, shopping, travel, and many other issues that wont take us into politics. This is the topic where she unfortunately, losses all sense of logic, and wisdom.
Its pointless to discuss these things with her, she is not willing to change a single millimeter, of her rock solid rubbish opinions that make no sense, and that's a shame.
No one who has read more than one or two of her posts expects Teresa to make an effort to understand other points of view any more than we expect it of you or any other of the lovable characters around here who teach us all so much about humility and gratitude. Most respondents really address her
ideas rather than her person, and not so much for her sake as for the sake of others who may be equally misguided but who enjoy the capacity to learn.
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 26, 2010, 05:21:38 AM
Supply meeting demand.
BS. Porn is a clear case of supply creating demand.
Quote
Everyone wants it,
More BS. Ask your mother, sister, wife or daughter.
Quote
excerpt you apparently.
I watch it now and then, so BS again.
Quote from: 71 dB on July 26, 2010, 05:26:41 AM
How do you define public pornography?
Just walk into a store selling newspapers and magazines and have a look around. Or turn on the TV and watch prety much any entertainment broadcasting. You'll know instantly what I mean .
Quote from: Florestan on July 26, 2010, 06:08:06 AM
BS. Porn is a clear case of supply creating demand.
Isn't this the case of most products/services? It is called a free market economy.
Quote from: Florestan on July 26, 2010, 06:08:06 AMJust walk into a store selling newspapers and magazines and have a look around. You'll know instantly what I mean .
What kind of newspapers do they sell in the US??
Quote from: 71 dB on July 26, 2010, 06:22:01 AM
Isn't this the case of most products/services?
No it isn't.
Quote from: Florestan on July 26, 2010, 06:08:06 AM
More BS. Ask your mother, sister, wife or daughter.
Couldn't you simplify that by saying "most women?"
Quote from: Greg on July 26, 2010, 06:33:01 AM
Couldn't you simplify that by saying "most women?"
Do you think it would have had the same effect? :)
Quote from: Florestan on July 26, 2010, 06:23:42 AM
No it isn't.
You could have given reasons for this view. There was not heavy demand for mobile phones for example before the phones and services came available. People wanted to see Avatar because it came to theaters and was advertised, etc.
Men are hard wired to respond to certain sexual stimuli. As a friend puts it, "When the blood flows to the little head, the big head gets starved for oxygen and turns stupid!" Every woman knows this and uses it to her advantage, if she's able to. It's why magicians always have pretty assistants in skimpy attire. And why you might approach the newsstand, intending to pick up a copy of The Economist with a boring cover illustration graphing unfunded liabilities for government entitlements, say, but after seeing cover after cover showing Monica Bellucci's cleavage -- )( -- you forget all about understanding current fiscal policy and hurry down to the sleazy part of town looking for something quite different from your original intent.
At least, this is what I surmise Andrei means when he says that the growing supply of public porn creates increased demand. ;)
Quote from: 71 dB on July 26, 2010, 06:38:23 AM
There was not heavy demand for mobile phones for example before the phones and services came available. People wanted to see Avatar because it came to theaters and was advertised, etc.
Yes, but "most products" is an overstatement.
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 26, 2010, 06:46:16 AM
Men are hard wired to respond to certain sexual stimuli. As a friend puts it, "When the blood flows to the little head, the big head gets starved for oxygen and turns stupid!" Every woman knows this and uses it to her advantage, if she's able to. It's why magicians always have pretty assistants in skimpy attire. And why you might approach the newsstand, intending to pick up a copy of The Economist with a boring cover illustration graphing unfunded liabilities for government entitlements, say, but after seeing cover after cover showing Monica Bellucci's cleavage -- )( -- you forget all about understanding current fiscal policy and hurry down to the sleazy part of town looking for something quite different from your original intent.
Porn diverts sexual energy away from legitimate sexual gratification, which involves personal interaction and risk, further increasing the perceived need for porn. A vicious cycle. Similar to junk foods, which give you a sugar hit with no nutrients.
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 26, 2010, 06:46:16 AM
Men are hard wired to respond to certain sexual stimuli. As a friend puts it, "When the blood flows to the little head, the big head gets starved for oxygen and turns stupid!" Every woman knows this and uses it to her advantage, if she's able to. It's why magicians always have pretty assistants in skimpy attire. And why you might approach the newsstand, intending to pick up a copy of The Economist with a boring cover illustration graphing unfunded liabilities for government entitlements, say, but after seeing cover after cover showing Monica Bellucci's cleavage -- )( -- you forget all about understanding current fiscal policy and hurry down to the sleazy part of town looking for something quite different from your original intent.
At least, this is what I surmise Andrei means when he says that the growing supply of public porn creates increased demand. ;)
Well said, David.
Quote from: Florestan on July 26, 2010, 06:51:34 AM
Yes, but "most products" is an overstatement.
Are you sure?
Quote from: Scarpia on July 26, 2010, 06:52:35 AM
Porn diverts sexual energy away from legitimate sexual gratification, which involves personal interaction and risk, further increasing the perceived need for porn. A vicious cycle.
Indeed. I've always believed that a psychologically normal person with a healthy sexual life has no need for porn, except maybe an occasional peep now and then.
Quote from: Florestan on July 26, 2010, 06:59:38 AM
Indeed. I've always believed that a psychologically normal person with a healthy sexual life has no need for porn, except maybe an occasional peep now and then.
Don't know if I can really agree with you there.
Quote from: 71 dB on July 26, 2010, 06:55:55 AM
Are you sure?
If you go to a mall, you'll see that most products on sale are food, beverages, clothing, shoes, and home appliances --- which cover not luxury or superfluous needs but the basic necessities of modern life. So yes, I'm sure that most products on the market meet the demand instead of creating it.
Quote from: Philoctetes on July 26, 2010, 07:01:57 AM
Don't know if I can really agree with you there.
Care to elaborate why?
Quote from: Florestan on July 26, 2010, 07:04:21 AM
Care to elaborate why?
Somtimes you partner cannot or will not be accomidating to your sexual needs.
Quote from: Philoctetes on July 26, 2010, 07:10:11 AM
Somtimes you partner cannot or will not be accomidating to your sexual needs.
Are you sure your sexual needs are really yours and not inculcated in your mind by the very porn you watch?
Quote from: Florestan on July 26, 2010, 06:08:06 AM
BS. Porn is a clear case of supply creating demand.
This tells me you have 0 amount of knowledge in basic economic theory. Why don't you learn a little about economics first before commenting on the topic?
so this is Bullshit
Quote from: Florestan on July 26, 2010, 06:08:06 AM
More BS. Ask your mother, sister, wife or daughter.
I watch it now and then, so BS again.
I haven't got a wife. But to my knowledge, women watch porn on a frequent basis too. Okay, maybe old people like your mother, or you don't. BUt that doesn't give you the right to tell everyone else what not to do.
so that's Bullshit
Quote from: Florestan on July 26, 2010, 06:08:06 AM
Just walk into a store selling newspapers and magazines and have a look around. Or turn on the TV and watch prety much any entertainment broadcasting. You'll know instantly what I mean .
uh, that's not really the "porn" I am talking about. You are referring to the magazines selling sex appeal. Which is not porn. Porn is nudity, and people having sex. I don't think I see that on streets. There maybe implied stuff on certain magazines, but rarely do you see actual penetration. Unless, of course you subscribe to penthouse, or Hustler. But, unlike what you've said. The popularity of porn mags "public porn" have declined to a point of almost no return. Since most people can just get their fix online for free.
So your entire "public porn" rant is Bullshit.
Quote from: Florestan on July 26, 2010, 07:15:20 AM
Are you sure your sexual needs are really yours and not inculcated in your mind by the very porn you watch?
Quite sure. I had these needs before I had even known that porn existed of that specific type.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 26, 2010, 06:52:35 AM
Porn diverts sexual energy away from legitimate sexual gratification, which involves personal interaction and risk, further increasing the perceived need for porn. A vicious cycle. Similar to junk foods, which give you a sugar hit with no nutrients.
Nice analogy. No risk, no muss, no fuss, no overpriced meal for two, and no intimacy...and the more distanced you become from real intimacy, the more frightening and difficult real intimacy becomes, so the natural sexual drive that should bring people closer together and teach us to value "otherness" gets perverted into something that pulls people farther apart and encourages selfishness and self-absorption.
Quote from: Florestan on July 26, 2010, 06:54:25 AM
Well said, David.
Thanks, Andrei. During my limited career teaching adolescents I found that it's pretty hard to compete with raging hormones. I'm not sure how our societies can best deal with the sexualization of damned near
everything for commercial exploitation, but I suspect that the current explosion is a predictable reaction against many years of the repression that Teresa has in mind.
Quote from: Florestan on July 26, 2010, 07:03:59 AM
If you go to a mall, you'll see that most products on sale are food, beverages, clothing, shoes, and home appliances --- which cover not luxury or superfluous needs but the basic necessities of modern life. So yes, I'm sure that most products on the market meet the demand instead of creating it.
Sales make people buy more than they need, that's the point. If you really need something, you are willing to pay more for it.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 26, 2010, 06:52:35 AM
Porn diverts sexual energy away from legitimate sexual gratification, which involves personal interaction and risk, further increasing the perceived need for porn. A vicious cycle. Similar to junk foods, which give you a sugar hit with no nutrients.
and you have some empirical scientific research to back this up?
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 26, 2010, 07:20:20 AM
and you have some empirical scientific research to back this up?
You'll have to perform your own experiments. 8)
Quote from: Scarpia on July 26, 2010, 07:31:02 AM
You'll have to perform your own experiments. 8)
it's actually not a bad hypothesis. One of my friend is a psych major, I might pitch the idea to him.
But, you have to remember. In a real relationship, you get companionship. That's something porn can never replace. Nor decrease your appetite for.
Quote from: Florestan on July 26, 2010, 07:03:59 AM
If you go to a mall, you'll see that most products on sale are food, beverages, clothing, shoes, and home appliances --- which cover not luxury or superfluous needs but the basic necessities of modern life. So yes, I'm sure that most products on the market meet the demand instead of creating it.
okay, this is getting under my skin a little bit. Supply doesn't create demand, period. It just doesn't happen. What you are observing is merely what has been there the whole time. People wanted porn. And they got it. Why isn't our internet full of websites about Beethoven and Bach? Is it because we aren't "supply" enough forums/website? no, the demand for it is small. So people don't even bother making them.
If I throw a mountain load of porn at you. Will you start watching it? (the response is probably yes) but that's not because "supply creates demand". That's because you wanted it, all along, and you just are too prude or chicken to admit it.
Quote from: kishnevi on July 25, 2010, 07:17:38 PM
Not being an economist, I don't keep that sort of information on file. But all that money the government put into TARP and the stimulus package--wasn't that a substantial addition to the money supply? Approximately equal to the amount of money already in circulation.
So in other words you cannot answer the question. The increase of assets of the Fed is not strictly the same as an increase of the money supply. (Incidentally, assets more than doubled.) No money supply measure has doubled or more than doubled. Even if it did, that may not be enough if deflation occurs.
Also, since you fancy yourself a libertarian, and you obviously have a problem with the Fed flooding the system with cash, something that was advocated by even Milton Friedman for a dire enough situation, how would you address the liquidity trap we were facing in 2008 and would face if the Fed started withdrawing the funds now? I know that you have said that the market would clear "all at once," though you have steadfastly refused to say how long that would take. Would you literally prefer that nothing were done, even though even some (indeed, many) staunchly conservative and/or libertarian economists and financiers have advocated both fiscal and monetary action? Please, what is your preferred policy response? And how long would it take?
Quote from: kishnevi on July 25, 2010, 07:17:38 PM
Prices increased sharply roughly two and a half years-three and a half years ago, then remained stable until about a year ago, when they began to rise, and still are rising. The rate of increase is not as sharp as it was during the prior increase, but is steadier and seems to be lasting longer.
Do you know the definition of inflation? It is
not an increase in prices for specific products or classes of products over a short period of time. The price increases for food of several years ago were attributable to increases in commodity prices, which is not the same as inflation. (There were deadly food riots in some poor countries, and the foolish idea of corn based biofuel has hopefully met its death, so I hope people can remember what happened.) Where I live, food prices went up, and then they went down a bit, and now they are going up again. That is not inflation either. You see, inflation is the increase in the general price level over time. (It's interesting that you at least implicitly accept the monetarist position on inflation – ie, that inflation is everywhere and always a monetary phenomenon – yet you also apparently dismiss policy suggestions of Monetarism's highest priest.) Perhaps a new definition of inflation is needed. What should that be?
I don't see the specter of inflation out there. For instance, two years ago I bought a variety of new bigger ticket items. The television I bought had decreased in price by over a third before it was taken off the market, and the model that replaced it is now cheaper yet. I also bought a new range. The same model is about $100 less than I paid, and it was on sale when I bought it. That's not inflation. Or is it? You are very clearly concerned about inflation, but in some classes of consumer goods, exactly the opposite is happening.
Now, when economic expansion begins in earnest, the vast increase in liquidity could and probably will lead to inflation. That is why the Fed already has plans to absorb the excess liquidity. They will not be able to eliminate every bit of excess inflation – ie, inflation above 2% per year – but it will most likely not be what we experienced in the 70s, and it certainly will not be the rapid or semi-rapid doubling of prices you alluded to earlier. The Fed will have a variety of tools at its disposal to tame inflation, including a repeat of Paul Volcker's approach if need be. That is a much better and easier scenario to deal with than a prolonged slump, or even deflation. Making policy involves selecting from imperfect options, and in my view, as unambiguously imperfect as the policy decisions of the past few years have been, a good mix of policy options has been selected.
Quote from: kishnevi on July 25, 2010, 07:17:38 PM
I'm giving details of something that occurred directly in my purview during the Clinton Administration, as evidence that manipulation was done in the past.
But what you described doesn't strike me as some type of (insidious) manipulation. The BLS generally does a very good job at calculating CPI, and follows established guidelines in selecting substitutes. Your example/implication simply doesn't carry much weight.
But let's consider measuring the CPI a bit more. How would you do things differently from the thousands of trained economists who have built statistical models and sampling techniques to calculate the CPI? I've read and heard complaints similar to yours for a couple decades, but I have yet to see or hear anyone come up with a viable alternative. Your fictitious bread example is but one case, but how would you extend this to the literally millions of products that Americans can buy? How and when would you substitute goods? How many consumer regions would you construct for your models? How would you weight various items? Etc.
I would never recommend to anyone that they take CPI or any government figures as gospel, but they are generally reliable indicators and are established and managed professionally. You are merely griping.
Quote from: kishnevi on July 25, 2010, 07:17:38 PM
As to your hypothetical about the computer--I would say that for purposes of determinging the CPI, a baseline, lower end computer shoudl be used. For instance, a computer that could allow for average gaming, internet, and home business use.
You missed the point, then. Let's change things a bit. I'll use my own computer purchases as an example, if you don't mind. In 2003 I bought a moderately priced computer package – computer, monitor, printer – for around $550-$600 (I can't remember the exact price – I hope that's okay). I'm not a heavy user at home, so that was sufficient. To get an appreciable improvement in performance cost several hundred more, and I had no desire to spend that. What I bought was still a pretty good machine and met my needs until a hardware failure occurred. Then in 2007 I bought a new computer package. It cost about $700. There was no option in the same price range I had paid in 2003 at the store I bought from. (It was Best Buy in both cases.) For the $150 or so premium I got over ten times as much storage, a dual core processor that measured at least ten times as fast, a larger, flat screen monitor, and a better color printer with a pretty nifty scanner. So I spent roughly 27% more, but by every objective measure I got substantially more than that. That's not inflation, not by any measure. My computer example holds across all price levels, and if anything is more pronounced at the lower end of the spectrum. I could have also used cell phones, which have become more and more common, and have advanced, if anything, even more. I guess you could say that cell phones and cell phone plans are more expensive than the landlines they replaced, but then could you ever text or take pictures or surf the net with a landline? Would the transition from landlines to cell phones, if people choose to make it, also represent inflation?
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 26, 2010, 07:51:22 AM
But, you have to remember. In a real relationship, you get companionship. That's something porn can never replace.
You're either very slow or even more cleverly whimsically ironic than I...maybe even than Nigel! :-\
Oh, thanks, your next post cleared that up. Nigel keeps the belt.
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 26, 2010, 08:04:11 AM
okay, this is getting under my skin a little bit. Supply doesn't create demand, period. It just doesn't happen. What you are observing is merely what has been there the whole time. People wanted porn. And they got it. Why isn't our internet full of websites about Beethoven and Bach? Is it because we aren't "supply" enough forums/website? no, the demand for it is small. So people don't even bother making them.
If I throw a mountain load of porn at you. Will you start watching it? (the response is probably yes) but that's not because "supply creates demand". That's because you wanted it, all along, and you just are too prude or chicken to admit it.
The human organism was given a strong sex drive because in pre-history sex was hard to obtain and necessary for the species to survive. It is also a facilitator of social interactions between humans. I wouldn't claim that porn created this "demand," but it seems to me that it diverts it from its proper subject to another, degrading one. Creating an easy outlet for sex that is isolating amd degrading rather than social and empowering seems like a perversion to me. In a similar sense "Coco-Puffs" or "Captain Crunch" divert a child's natural craving for carbohydrates, leading to malnutrition and obesity.
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 26, 2010, 07:16:20 AM
I haven't got a wife.
No surprise. What sane woman would want to marry a porn addict?
Quote from: Florestan on July 26, 2010, 03:35:59 AM
I am against gay marriage for the same reasons JdP stated. I think abortion should be legal only in a few cases (i.e. rape or when the mother's life is threatened) and it should be paid by the person who wants it (or her relatives, or private charities) not by the taxpayers at large. In sexual matters I believe that what two or more people do in their private home is no business for the government but I also believe government has a duty to promote and encourage public decency and prevent and discourage public immorality. In short, I am for personal responsibility and restraint and freedom under law. How authoritarian is that?
It sounds highly authoritarian to me.
Quote from: Bulldog on July 26, 2010, 08:54:17 AM
It sounds highly authoritarian to me.
Breaks my heart. ;)
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 26, 2010, 07:16:20 AM
I haven't got a wife.
Quote from: Florestan on July 26, 2010, 08:40:48 AM
No surprise. What sane woman would want to marry a porn addict?
Bear in mind also that the nature of many of Mr. oabmarcus's opinions--as well as the vehemence and language of their expression--suggest that he's scarcely beyond the age of consent, so he's probably not even in the market for marriage, yet.
Quote from: Todd on July 26, 2010, 08:14:23 AMI don't see the specter of inflation out there.
Now, when economic expansion begins in earnest, the vast increase in liquidity could and probably will lead to inflation. That is why the Fed already has plans to absorb the excess liquidity. They will not be able to eliminate every bit of excess inflation – ie, inflation above 2% per year – but it will most likely not be what we experienced in the 70s, and it certainly will not be the rapid or semi-rapid doubling of prices you alluded to earlier. The Fed will have a variety of tools at its disposal to tame inflation, including a repeat of Paul Volcker's approach if need be. That is a much better and easier scenario to deal with than a prolonged slump, or even deflation. Making policy involves selecting from imperfect options, and in my view, as unambiguously imperfect as the policy decisions of the past few years have been, a good mix of policy options has been selected.
So you don't foresee prolonged money supply increases in an effort to jump-start the stalled economy and (not entirely incidentally) to decrease the debt burden in real terms through inflation and bracket-creep? You think Bernanke able to resist political pressure in the runup to Nov 2012?
Thanks, by the way, for sharing something of your professional perspective on such matters. And I doubt I'm the only one who comes here hoping to learn something that might broaden my own understanding (though it's somewhat unexpected on
this thread!). 8)
Supply and demand respond to one another. It's common knowledge that an increase in the demand for a product will likely result in an increase in supply to meet the increased demand. Further, an increase in supply accompanied by "advertising" can certainly increase the demand for a product; this applies to a host of products including pornography.
Quote from: Bulldog on July 26, 2010, 09:17:42 AM
Supply and demand respond to one another. It's common knowledge that an increase in the demand for a product will likely result in an increase in supply to meet the increased demand. Further, an increase in supply accompanied by "advertising" can certainly increase the demand for a product; this applies to a host of products including pornography.
I think what oab was trying to indicate, is that while it can be the case that demand can be 'created', it is generally not the case, as it is generally not prudent to create a product without there being an audience ready to absorb the product.
Quote from: Saul on July 26, 2010, 04:45:10 AM
Its pointless to discuss these things with her, she is not willing to change a single millimeter . . .
In other words, she's just like you when anyone attempts to give you advice about your music.
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 26, 2010, 08:22:18 AM
You're either very slow or even more cleverly whimsically ironic than I...maybe even than Nigel! :-\
Oh, thanks, your next post cleared that up. Nigel keeps the belt.
personal attacks time, classy move. Personal attack #1, instead of responding to my last response, brings up some pure nonsense to distract everyone from the fact that he hadn't anything useful to say.
Quote from: Florestan on July 26, 2010, 08:40:48 AM
No surprise. What sane woman would want to marry a porn addict?
personal attack #2, keep em coming. Since you are better at that rather than actually saying anything of actual substance.
Quote from: Bulldog on July 26, 2010, 09:17:42 AM
Supply and demand respond to one another. It's common knowledge that an increase in the demand for a product will likely result in an increase in supply to meet the increased demand. Further, an increase in supply accompanied by "advertising" can certainly increase the demand for a product; this applies to a host of products including pornography.
it doesn't. Demand induce supply, but supply doesn't do shit to demand. Again, a clown who doesn't know what his talking about pretending to be an expert. Only to mislead people.
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 26, 2010, 09:25:17 AM
it doesn't. Demand induce supply, but supply doesn't do shit to demand.
That's an entirely inaccurate statement. One doesn't need to be an expert to know that supply/advertising affects demand; all you have to do is look around and see what's going on OR take a couple of courses in basic macro and micro economics.
Quote from: Bulldog on July 26, 2010, 09:30:48 AM
That's an entirely inaccurate statement. One doesn't need to be an expert to know that supply/advertising affects demand; all you have to do is look around and see what's going on OR take a couple of courses in basic macro and micro economics.
I have, i majored in Economics/Mathematics
Quote from: Bulldog on July 26, 2010, 09:30:48 AM
That's an entirely inaccurate statement. One doesn't need to be an expert to know that supply/advertising affects demand; all you have to do is look around and see what's going on OR take a couple of courses in basic macro and micro economics.
That's what my post was supposed to answer, but it seems that the personal attacks have bothered him, so.
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 26, 2010, 09:31:48 AM
I have, i majored in Economics/Mathematics
Same here, and you flunk the exam.
Quote from: Bulldog on July 26, 2010, 09:32:50 AM
Same here, and you flunk the exam.
University of Phoenix?
Quote from: Bulldog on July 26, 2010, 09:30:48 AM
take a couple of courses in basic macro and micro economics.
He's in dire need of an elementary grammar and spelling course as well.
Quote from: oabmarcus on July 26, 2010, 09:33:48 AM
University of Phoenix?
Nah, on-line universities didn't exist when I was in college so I had to attend a real school.
Boy, you're striking out every time today.
Looks like Gurn lost his patience... :)
Quote from: Philoctetes on July 26, 2010, 09:32:12 AM
That's what my post was supposed to answer, but it seems that the personal attacks have bothered him, so.
What personal attacks?
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 26, 2010, 09:43:35 AM
What personal attacks?
He viewed them as such. So perhaps I should have said the perceived personal attacks.
But now that this pissing contest is over, perhaps one of you could help me with my relatively simply math problem, in the other thread.
Quote from: Florestan on July 26, 2010, 09:42:58 AM
Looks like Gurn lost his patience... :)
Wow! Yep, that's some active moderation!
On behalf of my wife's privates, thanks, Gurn!
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 26, 2010, 09:46:32 AM
Wow! Yep, that's some active moderation!
No, all I did was send a warning. It was even worded nicely. :-\
8)
Hmm, wonder why he was so . . . touchy?
Quote from: Philoctetes on July 26, 2010, 09:45:31 AM
He viewed them as such. So perhaps I should have said the perceived personal attacks.
But now that this pissing contest is over, perhaps one of you could help me with my relatively simply math problem, in the other thread.
What pissing contest? It takes at least two to have a contest.
Wish I could help with your math problem, but my math skills are so poor that I can't even figure out how increasing budgetary shortfalls year after year, together with mandating new unfunded entitlements, equals a deficit reduction plan...?
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 26, 2010, 09:58:31 AM
What pissing contest? It takes at least two to have a contest.
Wish I could help with your math problem, but my math skills are so poor that I can't even figure out how increasing budgetary shortfalls year after year, together with mandating new unfunded entitlements, equals a deficit reduction plan...?
I suppose he was having it with himself. Although, the insuinations, even if true, about his childishness did not help calm the fire. Hence the 'personal' insults portion of my first quote.
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 26, 2010, 09:14:59 AM
So you don't foresee prolonged money supply increases in an effort to jump-start the stalled economy and (not entirely incidentally) to decrease the debt burden in real terms through inflation and bracket-creep? You think Bernanke able to resist political pressure in the runup to Nov 2012?
Oh, monetary policy will remain expansionary through this year, and I would not doubt that it will last well into 2011, if not the whole year. Expansionary policy could last through 2012. One can always hope that Bernanke and company has the fortitude to make the shift when the shift is needed and not before or after, but pressure from Congress to reduce the independence of the Fed (via more "audits", etc) may result in less than optimum policy. The Fed has been very explicit that they will maintain the current policies, particularly low discount rates and probably also lending facilities, until conditions change. Wisely, they have not put timelines in place.
I don't have concerns that we will see a return to 70s style inflation, let alone something more reminiscent of what has occurred in South America or other countries with sharp spikes in inflation. I could be wrong, of course, but it's not like the people at the Fed, and the Treasury, for that matter, aren't aware of the possible ramifications of their policies and don't have at least a few ideas about how to address the outcomes.
Your statement of reducing debt burden is accurate (though if interest rates spike, that changes things), and reminds me of the comments of a now ancient English observer who commented after the Napoleonic wars ended, and inflation ensued, that debtors pursued creditors relentlessly and repaid them without mercy. (I can't remember the exact quote, but that's quite close in the use of language.) Inflation does have consequences that help at least some people, at least at some levels of inflation.
And in the interest of full disclosure, I am not a professional economist. I did take my degree in econ years ago, and one of my areas of specialization was monetary theory and policy. That's why I tire of what so often passes for debate on the subject; basic concepts and facts are ignored, if they are even known. I do work in the financial sector, though, and have for my entire post-collegiate career. I've been very close to the sub-prime meltdown. (I should have done something else with my career!) So, my opinions are mine alone and may be totally inaccurate.
What a strange thread. I think I can enjoy it now more on a cerebral level than cheap entertainment.
Just, "hmmmmm..." I don't know what to think.
Quote from: Philoctetes on July 26, 2010, 10:00:56 AM
I suppose he was having it with himself. Although, the insuinations, even if true, about his childishness did not help calm the fire. Hence the 'personal' insults portion of my first quote.
I don't recall any references to childishness, just a reminder to another that the tone and content of his posts suggest that he's scarcely past the age of majority and therefore youth might be a primary reason for his unmarried state. That was actually a thoughtful and empathetic observation, will no ill will intended or expressed. His reaction and subsequent posts, however--particularly those removed by the moderator--suggest that I was mistaken and that he's younger than I thought.
Beats me why some of the fellows who've turned up here feel ashamed of their youth; no one else regards it as shameful, but rather as something to be enjoyed and celebrated. Yet they interpret observations regarding their age as insults, rather than as recognition of a value-neutral characteristic like gender or nationality that is part of their character and which conditions their attitudes and beliefs. He certainly thought age relevant and reasonable to note when he commented on Florestan's age (and his mother's).
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 26, 2010, 10:41:04 AM
I don't recall any references to childishness, just a reminder to another that the tone and content of his posts suggest that he's scarcely past the age of majority and therefore youth might be a primary reason for his unmarried state. That was actually a thoughtful and empathetic observation, will no ill will intended or expressed. His reaction and subsequent posts, however--particularly those removed by the moderator--suggest that I was mistaken and that he's younger than I thought.
Beats me why some of the fellows who've turned up here feel ashamed of their youth; no one else regards it as shameful, but rather as something to be enjoyed and celebrated. Yet they interpret observations regarding their age as insults, rather than as recognition of a value-neutral characteristic like gender or nationality that is part of their character and which conditions their attitudes and beliefs. He certainly thought age relevant and reasonable to note when he commented on Florestan's age (and his mother's).
I couldn't say what your intention was, but when I was reading it, it did come across in a belittling sort of way.
Aw, I went for a copy of coffee and missed all the fun. There really should be a gallery of moderated deleted posts. Maybe I can file a freedom of information act claim.
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 26, 2010, 10:41:04 AM
I don't recall any references to childishness, just a reminder to another that the tone and content of his posts suggest that he's scarcely past the age of majority and therefore youth might be a primary reason for his unmarried state. That was actually a thoughtful and empathetic observation, will no ill will intended or expressed. His reaction and subsequent posts, however--particularly those removed by the moderator--suggest that I was mistaken and that he's younger than I thought.
Beats me why some of the fellows who've turned up here feel ashamed of their youth; no one else regards it as shameful, but rather as something to be enjoyed and celebrated. Yet they interpret observations regarding their age as insults, rather than as recognition of a value-neutral characteristic like gender or nationality that is part of their character and which conditions their attitudes and beliefs. He certainly thought age relevant and reasonable to note when he commented on Florestan's age (and his mother's).
I'm going to assume that you're intelligent enough to see how the things that were posted (by you and some others) could be seen in a very different light.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 26, 2010, 10:49:37 AM
Aw, I went for a copy of coffee and missed all the fun. There really should be a gallery of moderated deleted posts. Maybe I can file a freedom of information act claim.
They weren't all that impressive, but I think it was clear that neither side sought to understand the other.
Quote from: Philoctetes on July 26, 2010, 11:19:51 AM
They weren't all that impressive, but I think it was clear that neither side sought to understand the other.
So very true. Even a minimal amount of finding common ground would have probably avoided the whole issue.
8)
So much My way or the highway in the air these days.
Quote from: Todd on July 26, 2010, 10:30:12 AM
And in the interest of full disclosure, I am not a professional economist. I did take my degree in econ years ago, and one of my areas of specialization was monetary theory and policy. That's why I tire of what so often passes for debate on the subject; basic concepts and facts are ignored, if they are even known. I do work in the financial sector, though, and have for my entire post-collegiate career. I've been very close to the sub-prime meltdown. (I should have done something else with my career!) So, my opinions are mine alone and may be totally inaccurate.
Well, we all tend to be a bit hasty in our judgments from time to time...which is just one reason it helps to be aware of just how little we really know, sometimes better remembered in areas where we
do have some limited expertise than in those we have none! And the difference between discourse in a professional environment and on an open internet forum can indeed be challenging, even for one who's raised teenagers, worked with hardened felons and drug addicts and the homeless and mentally ill and scientists and engineers and farm workers and academics and artists and new immigrants (documented and otherwise) and even junior high school students!
Thanks for sharing your perspective. I do have more confidence in Bernanke and the Fed than in many of our other institutions (especially those clowns on Capitol Hill) and it's comforting to hear that one who doubtless knows more than I shares that confidence.
Cheers, dude!
Quote from: Philoctetes on July 26, 2010, 11:13:48 AM
I'm going to assume that you're intelligent enough to see how the things that were posted (by you and some others) could be seen in a very different light.
Well, let's just say that I'm bright enough--and my memory's good enough--to know that some folks here have hidden agenda that color their take on things...
Quote from: Philoctetes on July 26, 2010, 11:19:51 AM
They weren't all that impressive, but I think it was clear that neither side sought to understand the other.
...and that this sort of pronouncement is a case in point. It was painfully clear that one temperamental party was well understood by all involved but himself and that the other principals conducted themselves civilly and with admirable restraint, making thoughtful allowances as appropriate.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 26, 2010, 05:14:27 AM
Well said, Saul. Although I should warn you that her opinions on music and audio equipment are equally bizarre and intractable, so you want to avoid those altogether. I'm pretty sure you will be hard-pressed to find something of mutual interest where any opinion offered is not already set in stone. Just sayin'... :)
8)
That's why I didnt mention music too... ;)
Quote from: Saul on July 26, 2010, 04:45:10 AM
Its pointless to discuss these things with her, she is not willing to change a single millimeter, of her rock solid rubbish opinions that make no sense, and that's a shame.
WRONG! I have changed much over my life.
- I grew from libertarianism to progressivism.
- Over time I came to accept gay people as lovable human beings who were also created by God.
- I went from no opinion on abortion to being Pro-choice.
- I have always been anti-Porn though as I can see with my own eyes how destructive it has been to society as we have watched its influence grow over the decades.
If someone has good points I always listen. The Green Party has the best positions I have ever seen in over five decades of studying every political persuasion. So if someone presents a convincing position I am very willing to adjust my belief system.
Quote from: 71 dB on July 26, 2010, 06:22:01 AM
Isn't this the case of most products/services? It is called a free market economy.
Yes, just because they use "sex" to sell products does not make it right. The media objectified a women's body and then turned it into a way to sell products. This is MORALLY WRONG! Products should be sold on their own merits. Tantalizing human male's most basic instincts causes too many problems in society this is why we need to move back to the moral foundations that made our country great.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 26, 2010, 06:52:35 AM
Porn diverts sexual energy away from legitimate sexual gratification, which involves personal interaction and risk, further increasing the perceived need for porn. A vicious cycle. Similar to junk foods, which give you a sugar hit with no nutrients.
Great post, I agree with this 100%
Quote from: Florestan on July 26, 2010, 08:40:48 AM
No surprise. What sane woman would want to marry a porn addict?
Bingo!
Quote from: Teresa on July 26, 2010, 01:31:27 PM
WRONG! I have changed much over my life.
- I grew from libertarianism to progressivism.
- Over time I came to accept gay people as lovable human beings who were also created by God.
- I went from no opinion on abortion to being Pro-choice.
- I have always been anti-Porn though as I can see with my own eyes how destructive it has been to society as we have watched its influence grow over the decades.
If someone has a good argument I always listen. The Green Party has the best arguments I have ever seen in over five decades of studying every political persuasion. So if someone presents a convincing argument I am very willing to adjust my belief system.
Yes, just because they use "sex" to sell products does not make it right. The media objectified a women's body and then turned it into a way to sell products. This is MORALLY WRONG! Products should be sold on their own merits. Tantalizing human male's most basic instincts causes too many problems in society this is why we need to move back to the moral foundations that made our country great.
Great post, I agree with this 100%
Bingo!
Please, the last thing I want to do is to argue with you why its pointless to argue with you.
Quote from: Saul on July 26, 2010, 02:00:18 PM
Please, the last thing I want to do is to argue with you why its pointless to argue with you.
So don't argue, love is a better emotion. It works for me, just open up your heart and let the world in. :)
I don't like the word
argument, and realized I used it incorrectly in my post and substuted the correct words as follows.
Corrected:
"If someone has a good points I always listen. The Green Party has the best positions I have ever seen in over five decades of studying every political persuasion. So if someone presents a convincing position I am very willing to adjust my belief system."Also it is not my job or your job to tell others what to believe, all we can do is present our opinions to the best of our ability. :)
Quote from: Scarpia on July 26, 2010, 10:49:37 AM
Aw, I went for a copy of coffee and missed all the fun. There really should be a gallery of moderated deleted posts.
I would go for the original next time. Prices are higher at the gallery but it's worth it.
Quote from: Teresa on July 26, 2010, 02:17:10 PM
So don't argue, love is a better emotion. It works for me, just open up your heart and let the world in. :)
I don't like the word argument, and realized I used it incorrectly in my post and substuted the correct words as follows.
Corrected: "If someone has a good points I always listen. The Green Party has the best positions I have ever seen in over five decades of studying every political persuasion."
Also it is not my job or your job to tell others what to believe, all we can do is present our opinions to the best of our ability. :)
Teresa,
Can you do me a favor... please don't talk with me about politics.
Now cooking and baking, shopping and travel are some things I'm sure we can discuss.
Finally, back to the original topic...
Political Cows!! ;D
http://www.paklinks.com/gs/jokes-rated-g/204481-are-you-a-communist-socialist-capitalist-dont-know-find-out-here.html
Quote from: kishnevi on July 28, 2010, 08:31:04 PM
To state it in as basic terms as possible, your concept of '"harm" is much too broad. Bad consequences that are suffered by others is not harm that allows someone to intervene. Loss of life or liberty, or the threat thereof, is the necessary threshold.
Who decides this necessity?
Quote
People who like power are always attracted to government, and will use any excuse, including morality, to increase their power over others--and that's the answer to your multifaceted question.
That's not even the beginning of an answer. Try again, here are the questions:
1. If the governmentally enforced morality is such a bad, unnatural and inhuman thing, then how come that it appeared, in the first place?
2. How come that each and every government under the sun, since the dawn of civilization till present days have done / does it?
3. If libertarianism is such a rational, natural and good scheme, then how come that no civilized society has ever had a government even remotely organized alongside libertarian principles?
4. Was / is the vast majority of mankind just a bunch of fools and were / are the libertarians the only wise and enlightened men?
Quote
Being offended is not the same as being harmed. No one is harmed by it, and that means if decent citizens don't like seeing it, they need to turn their eyes towards something else.
That's one of the greatest libertarian fallacies, to think that harm is only physical, and it stems from the reductionist view of man as a mere property-owner and of society as a mere contract between consenting property-owners.
Given that the best things in life are not related to property (at least not in the libertarian sense) and that society is much more than the total sum of its members (viz. Burke) there is no surprise that libertarianism never gained the upper hand in the political and economical practice.
Quote
You're missing the basic point--the right to a remedy belongs to the people who suffer the harm,not some overarching government. And if they are harmed, they can deputize someone to act for them--in this case the police.
The democratically elected city council passes a law which prohibits throwing garbage in the streets. The policeman is dutybound to enforce it on spot if it's there. It's common-sense and it happens everyday in any civilized society. Ever visited Switzerland? There you are fined for waving the after-dinner tablecloth in the window, regardless of whether your neighbours saw / reported your act or not, it suffices that a policeman saw you. Do I need to elaborate on what a clean and green country Switzerland is?
Quote
And the mayor's job does not include deciding which pubs are nuisances. The mayor's job is to make sure the streets and sewers are kept in repair, and things of that nature.
The mayor's job is to act in the best interest of the community that elected him. Repairing streets and sewers is of course part of his job, but so is acting on behalf of citizens at their request. It's something called self-government, or democracy.
Quote
being noisy late at night is almost a necessary part of being a good bar/pub.
Absolutely. But being noisy late at night inside of a bar is not the same thing as being noisy late at night outside of it, especially if the bar is located right in the middle of a residential area.
If a majority of citizens in that area complains to the city council about a bar being a constant source of noise, garbage and rude behaviour late at night, then the mayor is dutybound to take action. It's the same darn self-government of a community and I'm surprised that a self-avowed libertarian has it in such contempt.
Quote from: Philoctetes on July 29, 2010, 10:09:07 AM
Finally, back to the original topic...
Political Cows!! ;D
http://www.paklinks.com/gs/jokes-rated-g/204481-are-you-a-communist-socialist-capitalist-dont-know-find-out-here.html
I especially liked these:
COMMUNIST
You have two cows.
The government seizes both and provides you with milk.
You wait in line for hours to get it.
It is expensive and sour.FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You go on strike because you want three cows.
You go to lunch and drink wine.
Life is good.ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows but you don't know where they are.
While ambling around, you see a beautiful woman.
You break for lunch.
Life is good.
Quote from: Florestan on July 30, 2010, 01:03:43 AM
Who decides this necessity?
That's not even the beginning of an answer. Try again, here are the questions:
1. If the governmentally enforced morality is such a bad, unnatural and inhuman thing, then how come that it appeared, in the first place?
2. How come that each and every government under the sun, since the dawn of civilization till present days have done / does it?
3. If libertarianism is such a rational, natural and good scheme, then how come that no civilized society has ever had a government even remotely organized alongside libertarian principles?
4. Was / is the vast majority of mankind just a bunch of fools and were / are the libertarians the only wise and enlightened men?
Some very valid points here, although I'd say the the libertarian/authoritarian choice is a false dichotomy. A binary model doesn't begin to address all of the issues.
I may be more of a cynic, but I have about as much trust in a government enforcement morality as I do trusting the better nature of people. I consider both extremes as potentially dangerous.
As for question 2- would you consider living in a society governed by Old Testament law, strictly enforced, where ever death penalty (including those when other family members must be put to death as well?) Should stubborn and rebellious sons be put to death? (Deuteronomy 21:18-22). There are some other interesting capital offenses as well.
Also, I would say the governments over history have varied widely to the degree that they have enforced morality, and specific moral codes, but yes, they all do it to some degree.
What happens when two moral systems occupy the same space? Religious persecutions have been around as long as there have been theocracies. (I can cite examples from the time of Joshua, the inquisitions, numerous persecutions of the the Jews, 30 years war, etc). There has also been bloodletting under secular attempts to enforce moral codes (the height of the Terror in France, the killing fields in Cambodia, the Cultural Revolution, etc. )
I'm certainly not trying to attack any one's faith or moral system here-- but I have a healthy distrust of governments as well.
As much as I rail against the US Government in practice, there are some elements of it I truly love. The Bill of Rights in particular, since it establishes the rights of a citizen as opposed to the government. The notion of Freedom of Religion is included in the First Amendment, which would prevent the government from establishing a state-sponsored religion, and in any way abridging a citizen's right to follow their faith.
But there is no magic solution. Court cases are continually addressing issues about the rights of one individual when they may interfere with those of another, or people "inventing" faiths to cover civil crimes, etc. There will always be a tension between a libertarian ideal of freedom and the rights of an individual and the need for an government structure to protect people from each other, and the boundaries will be continually tested and tried.
So, I guess if handed the two choices, I'd have to chart out the middle path between them.
Quote from: jowcol on July 30, 2010, 04:57:47 AM
As for question 2- would you consider living in a society governed by Old Testament law, strictly enforced, where ever death penalty (including those when other family members must be put to death as well?) Should stubborn and rebellious sons be put to death? (Deuteronomy 21:18-22). There are some other interesting capital offenses as well.
That was of course an extreme case and I certainly don't endorse it.
Quote
Also, I would say the governments over history have varied widely to the degree that they have enforced morality, and specific moral codes, but yes, they all do it to some degree.
And that's my whole point: never in the recorded history did a society have a libertarian government.
Quote
I'm certainly not trying to attack any one's faith or moral system here-- but I have a healthy distrust of governments as well.
A government is just as good or bad as the people who compose it and the laws and general mentality under which it operates.The strictly-structured, highly authoritarian and socially conservative Prussian government offered its citizens a degree of education, prosperity and stability that was the envy of all other states, while the democratically elected, losely structured and socially liberal government of the Second Spanish Republic produced such a mess in society and economy that it took a bloody civil war and forty years of dictatorship, more or less brutal, to fix it up.
Quote
But there is no magic solution.
Precisely.
I've heard politics explained via cows all my life. Apparently folks have been busy expanding the idea. This one's from Stanford so it must be correct ;) :
WORLD IDEOLOGIES EXPLAINED BY REFERENCE TO COWS
FEUDALISM
You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.
SOCIALISM
You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn
with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all the cows. The
government gives you a glass of milk.
FASCISM
You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of
them, and sells you the milk.
PURE COMMUNISM
You share two cows with your neighbors. You and your neighbors bicker
about who has the most "ability" and who has the most "need". Meanwhile,
no one works, no one gets any milk, and the cows drop dead of
starvation.
RUSSIAN COMMUNISM
You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government
takes all the milk. You steal back as much milk as you can and sell it
on the black market.
PERESTROIKA
You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the Mafia takes
all the milk. You steal back as much milk as you can and sell it on the
"free" market.
CAMBODIAN COMMUNISM
You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you.
DICTATORSHIP
You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.
PURE DEMOCRACY
You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.
REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the
milk.
BUREAUCRACY
You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed
them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then
it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the
drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the
missing cows.
CAPITALISM
You don't have any cows. The bank will not lend you money to buy cows,
because you don't have any cows to put up as collateral.
PURE ANARCHY
You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your
neighbors try to take the cows and kill you.
ANARCHO-CAPITALISM
You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.
SURREALISM
You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica
lessons.
OLYMPICS-ISM
You have two cows, one American, one Chinese. With the help of trilling
violins and state of the art montage photography, John Tesh narrates the
moving tale of how the American cow overcame the agony of growing up in
a suburb with (gasp) divorced parents, then mentions in passing that the
Chinese cow was beaten every day by a tyrannical farmer and watched its
parents butchered before its eyes. The American cow wins the
competition, severely spraining an udder in a gritty performance, and
gets a multi-million dollar contract to endorse Wheaties. The Chinese
cow is led out of the arena and shot by Chinese government officials,
though no one ever hears about it. McDonald's buys the meat and serves
it hot and fast at its Beijing restaurant.
AMERICAN CORPORATE CAPITALISM
Both cows are bloated with toxic steroids. They are set out to graze on
privatized public parks, release massive amounts of flatulence that
destroys the ozone layer, die from excess ultraviolet light, and are
processed into meat-like products that look great as a result of clever
and unprincipled marketing strategies. When you mortgage your
artificially devalued farm at high interest rates in order to buy meat,
you consume the poisoned material and develop terminal illnesses because
there is no health care plan to treat you. The corporate management uses
your purchase price to acquire THEIR meat from cows raised "naturally"
on tree-free rain forest land outside of the country where labor and
resources are cheap.
BRITISH REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
Both cows are mad
@ DavidRoss
That is a sweet post. Expanded political cows! ;D
Now that we've emerged from the arguments over porn (and thank you for the PM)--
Quote from: Florestan on July 30, 2010, 01:03:43 AM
Who decides this necessity?
Reality. It's usually fairly easy to decide if something is a threat to life or not. Even if it isn't, it will always boil down to a question of facts.
Quote
That's not even the beginning of an answer. Try again, here are the questions:
1. If the governmentally enforced morality is such a bad, unnatural and inhuman thing, then how come that it appeared, in the first place?
2. How come that each and every government under the sun, since the dawn of civilization till present days have done / does it?
3. If libertarianism is such a rational, natural and good scheme, then how come that no civilized society has ever had a government even remotely organized alongside libertarian principles?
4. Was / is the vast majority of mankind just a bunch of fools and were / are the libertarians the only wise and enlightened men?
On the contrary, it's the complete answer: people in power like power and will use any excuse to stay in power. Enforcing morality is a handy excuse for staying in power. But it's taken most of history to get to the point where we can recognize that morality is merely an excuse for power and not a justification for it.
Quote
That's one of the greatest libertarian fallacies, to think that harm is only physical, and it stems from the reductionist view of man as a mere property-owner and of society as a mere contract between consenting property-owners.
That's not the libertarian view. What libertarianism recognizes is that only physical harm can be known as a matter of hard fact to be harmful. All other claims of harm are subjective and therefore should not be enforced by the government. Two people having sex in public does not cause any physical harm, and therefore no one has the right to punish or prohibit them.
I will repeat what I said before: being offended is not being harmed.
Quote
Given that the best things in life are not related to property (at least not in the libertarian sense) and that society is much more than the total sum of its members (viz. Burke) there is no surprise that libertarianism never gained the upper hand in the political and economical practice.
Burke is wrong. Society is an imaginary construct, and it can never be more than the sum of its individual members. And only in a libertarian society can you 1) decide for yourself what the best thing in life are 2)decide to how to obtain them and 3)obtain them without being prohibited by any one else.
Quote
The democratically elected city council passes a law which prohibits throwing garbage in the streets. The policeman is dutybound to enforce it on spot if it's there. It's common-sense and it happens everyday in any civilized society. Ever visited Switzerland? There you are fined for waving the after-dinner tablecloth in the window, regardless of whether your neighbours saw / reported your act or not, it suffices that a policeman saw you. Do I need to elaborate on what a clean and green country Switzerland is?
Being the result of a democratic process is does mean an act of government is justified. In this case, I'd answer that the city council has no right to prohibit garbage. The garbage thrower's neighbors can sue him for nuisance, but that it's, because no one else is being harmed by his actions.
As for Switzerland--if a country protects child molesters (ie Roman Polanski) and assists in hiding Nazi loot, then you'll forgive me if I don't admire it. In fact, the anti-littering is a sign of petty minded tyranny.
Quote
The mayor's job is to act in the best interest of the community that elected him. Repairing streets and sewers is of course part of his job, but so is acting on behalf of citizens at their request. It's something called self-government, or democracy.
Again, being a democratic process does not justify a law that impinged on the rights of other people. Such laws are merely the signs of a tyrannical majority.
To quote the definition by Cows:
PURE DEMOCRACY
You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.
REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the
milk.Quote
Absolutely. But being noisy late at night inside of a bar is not the same thing as being noisy late at night outside of it, especially if the bar is located right in the middle of a residential area.
If a majority of citizens in that area complains to the city council about a bar being a constant source of noise, garbage and rude behaviour late at night, then the mayor is dutybound to take action. It's the same darn self-government of a community and I'm surprised that a self-avowed libertarian has it in such contempt.
Even better, they can sue him for nuisance. But in my experience complaints of that sort are usually the result of only one or two individuals, not a majority of the community.
What libertarians have in contempt is those people who claim to speak for the community but are in reality only speaking for themselves--and usually one finds that such people are more interested in gaining and using power than in any actual result.
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 30, 2010, 07:34:53 AM
I've heard politics explained via cows all my life. Apparently folks have been busy expanding the idea. This one's from Stanford so it must be correct ;) :
WORLD IDEOLOGIES EXPLAINED BY REFERENCE TO COWS
FEUDALISM
You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.
SOCIALISM
You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn
with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all the cows. The
government gives you a glass of milk.
FASCISM
You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of
them, and sells you the milk.
PURE COMMUNISM
You share two cows with your neighbors. You and your neighbors bicker
about who has the most "ability" and who has the most "need". Meanwhile,
no one works, no one gets any milk, and the cows drop dead of
starvation.
RUSSIAN COMMUNISM
You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government
takes all the milk. You steal back as much milk as you can and sell it
on the black market.
PERESTROIKA
You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the Mafia takes
all the milk. You steal back as much milk as you can and sell it on the
"free" market.
CAMBODIAN COMMUNISM
You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you.
DICTATORSHIP
You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.
PURE DEMOCRACY
You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.
REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the
milk.
BUREAUCRACY
You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed
them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then
it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the
drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the
missing cows.
CAPITALISM
You don't have any cows. The bank will not lend you money to buy cows,
because you don't have any cows to put up as collateral.
PURE ANARCHY
You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your
neighbors try to take the cows and kill you.
ANARCHO-CAPITALISM
You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.
SURREALISM
You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica
lessons.
OLYMPICS-ISM
You have two cows, one American, one Chinese. With the help of trilling
violins and state of the art montage photography, John Tesh narrates the
moving tale of how the American cow overcame the agony of growing up in
a suburb with (gasp) divorced parents, then mentions in passing that the
Chinese cow was beaten every day by a tyrannical farmer and watched its
parents butchered before its eyes. The American cow wins the
competition, severely spraining an udder in a gritty performance, and
gets a multi-million dollar contract to endorse Wheaties. The Chinese
cow is led out of the arena and shot by Chinese government officials,
though no one ever hears about it. McDonald's buys the meat and serves
it hot and fast at its Beijing restaurant.
AMERICAN CORPORATE CAPITALISM
Both cows are bloated with toxic steroids. They are set out to graze on
privatized public parks, release massive amounts of flatulence that
destroys the ozone layer, die from excess ultraviolet light, and are
processed into meat-like products that look great as a result of clever
and unprincipled marketing strategies. When you mortgage your
artificially devalued farm at high interest rates in order to buy meat,
you consume the poisoned material and develop terminal illnesses because
there is no health care plan to treat you. The corporate management uses
your purchase price to acquire THEIR meat from cows raised "naturally"
on tree-free rain forest land outside of the country where labor and
resources are cheap.
BRITISH REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
Both cows are mad
Put it this way, I'll take feudalism over any other any time of the day (or night). :)
Quote from: kishnevi on July 30, 2010, 10:48:29 AMThat's not the libertarian view. What libertarianism recognizes is that only physical harm can be known as a matter of hard fact to be harmful. All other claims of harm are subjective and therefore should not be enforced by the government. Two people having sex in public does not cause any physical harm, and therefore no one has the right to punish or prohibit them.
You can type as many philosophical justifications for your "libertarian" philosophy as you please. I am willing to bet my last dollar that almost no one would be willing to actually live in the "Utopian" paradise you have imagined. They would flee from it and seek a place where reasonable social norms are enforced. And I am quite sure that in the unlikely event that such a country ever comes into being, you would not want to live there either. That is why you have to pay top dollar to buy a house in a community with an active city council that requires people to have neatly trimmed lawns, and why you wouldn't even feel comfortable driving your car through a community where people have sex on their front yards amid piles of garbage.
I certainly agree that the government should be as unobtrusive as possible with respect to things to go on in private. But people equally do not want other peoples private or intimate choices to intrude on their lives, and are willing to concede the right to behave certain ways in public in return for the assurance that others will abide by the same rules.
Interesting, if we didn't have the diner I wouldn't even know that you are a raving loon.
Quote from: kishnevi on July 30, 2010, 10:48:29 AM
Reality. It's usually fairly easy to decide if something is a threat to life or not. Even if it isn't, it will always boil down to a question of facts.
Interesting. You now supposedly believe in the value of facts. Yet when asked to provide facts to support your economic and historical assertions earlier in this very thread, you failed to do so.
You try to disguise your purely ideological outlook as something rooted in "reality." How silly.
Quote from: kishnevi on July 30, 2010, 10:48:29 AM
we've emerged from the arguments over porn (and thank you for the PM)
You're welcome. I hate it when filth takes precedence over truly important and normal things, such as how a society should be best organized. :)
I'll answer to your points later this week-end. Please stay tuned.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 30, 2010, 11:32:56 AM
Interesting, if we didn't have the diner I wouldn't even know that you are a raving loon.
That has a broader application. Being a loon is a prereq for posting or even reading the diner.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 30, 2010, 11:32:56 AM
I certainly agree that the government should be as unobtrusive as possible with respect to things to go on in private.
This is indeed the crux of the matter and I'll come back to it. For the time being, I posit that making the distinction between private and public space and behaviours is THE landmark of a civilized society
Quote
But people equally do not want other peoples private or intimate choices to intrude on their lives, and are willing to concede the right to behave certain ways in public in return for the assurance that others will abide by the same rules.
QFT.
Returning further back to a topic widely discussed in this topic: the 'great' recession, and the cause or non-cause of it.
Some recent news in regards to the housing, more specifically Fannie and Freddie, and the non-fix of it's structural integrity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S_3hZ7FOv8&feature=sub
"Guarantees produce moral hazard, risk, and excessive risk taking," says Anthony Sanders
Quote from: Scarpia on July 30, 2010, 11:32:56 AM
You can type as many philosophical justifications for your "libertarian" philosophy as you please. I am willing to bet my last dollar that almost no one would be willing to actually live in the "Utopian" paradise you have imagined. They would flee from it and seek a place where reasonable social norms are enforced. And I am quite sure that in the unlikely event that such a country ever comes into being, you would not want to live there either. That is why you have to pay top dollar to buy a house in a community with an active city council that requires people to have neatly trimmed lawns, and why you wouldn't even feel comfortable driving your car through a community where people have sex on their front yards amid piles of garbage.
You are merely proving that plenty of people like being told what to do. But the fact that plenty of people like something does not mean it is morally right. And there are plenty of people who would move to such a place. As an indication, I know of people who, when purchasing a house, purposely look for clunkers in the yard, etc, because that indicates the community in question has loose zoning rules.
And you seem to be missing something important: while Mr. Mayor has no right to tell you what to do with your garbage, your neighbors do. Enforcement should be with them, and not with the government, and only if they choose to do so. Government should intervene only if there is no other way to protect life or liberty, and then do so in the least intrusive way.
You are right that I wouldn't want to live in a neighborhood with garbage on the lawns--because to me that indicates the people that live there have no respect for themselves or their neighbors. I don't want a government that enforces these things because that means the government can also force me to do other things I don't want to do, like painting my house a certain color or operate a business out of my house.
If you want to live in a community where all the houses are a matching color, that's fine by me. (In fact, I live in a such a place.) But don't let it be because the city zoning board limits the colors to whatever palate pleases the city zoning board. Let it be because you and your neighbors have agreed among yourselves that matching colors are a good, or at least pleasant, thing to have.
Quote
I certainly agree that the government should be as unobtrusive as possible with respect to things to go on in private. But people equally do not want other peoples private or intimate choices to intrude on their lives, and are willing to concede the right to behave certain ways in public in return for the assurance that others will abide by the same rules.
But they don't need a government to do that. Think of it this way: do you want your neighbors not to leave garbage on their lawns because they respect you, or do you want them not to leave garbage on the lawn only because they don't want to be fined by the local zoning board?
I'm leaving out the public sex because, unlike garbage on the lawn, I don't know of places where that actually happens. But if you can give me some good reasons why public sex directly harms the life and liberty of other people, I'll accede to you on that issue.
Quote
Interesting, if we didn't have the diner I wouldn't even know that you are a raving loon.
If I am mad, then may the whole world become mad like me.
Quote from: Todd on July 30, 2010, 11:45:48 AM
Interesting. You now supposedly believe in the value of facts. Yet when asked to provide facts to support your economic and historical assertions earlier in this very thread, you failed to do so.
You try to disguise your purely ideological outlook as something rooted in "reality." How silly.
Well, you demanded I produce a case in which government did not intervene. Since (as you ought to know, if you don't) government always intervene, it's not possible to produce such a case. And you also trotted out the scare scenario which was used to justify TARP, without acknowledging just how speculative that scenario actually was.
And I referred you to the interventions made by President Hoover in the period 1929-31 (by the Hoover, not by the Fed). That's part of the historical record. Read up on it if you aren't familiar with it.
Quote from: kishnevi on July 30, 2010, 10:48:29 AM
Reality. It's usually fairly easy to decide if something is a threat to life or not. Even if it isn't, it will always boil down to a question of facts.
Reality and facts show that accumulating pile upon pile of garbage in the streets is a serious threat to the health (i.e, life) of citizens. I suggest you take a half-hour walk in Naples to witness directly libertarianism in action with regard to throwing garbage.
Quote
On the contrary, it's the complete answer: people in power like power and will use any excuse to stay in power.
That's an unwarranted generalization. History is full of people in power who renounced it voluntarily for one reason or another.
Quote
Enforcing morality is a handy excuse for staying in power.
Agreed. But that doesn't make enforcing morality a bad thing
per se, just as fighting terrorism being a handy excuse for violating civil rights doesn't make fighting terrorism a bad thing
per se. There is use and abuse and what should be feared is not power in itself but its abuse.
Quote
But it's taken most of history to get to the point where we can recognize that morality is merely an excuse for power and not a justification for it.
Strange. On one hand, libertarians view people as moral, rational and enlightened persons, oriented voluntarily towards their good and that of their fellow men; on the other hand, their morality, rationality and enlightenment ceases when they happen to hold an office in the government, in which case they turn into predators bent on consolidating their power by all means and at any cost.
Quote
What libertarianism recognizes is that only physical harm can be known as a matter of hard fact to be harmful.
I refer you again to Naples and the proven hard fact of garbage in the streets being physically harmful.
Besides, hard facts that goes contrary to libertarian claims are oftenly ignored. It's a hard fact that libertarianism was largely rejected by each and every society since recorded history. It's a hard fact that the Libertarian Party US has won, since its founding in 1971, between less than 0.1% and 1.1% of the popular vote in the presidential elections. It's thus a hard fact that the vast majority of people, since the dawn of civilization up to our present days, had and has no use for libertarianism. Yet libertarians are still busy at trying to convince them otherwise. It's like trying to break down the whole Great Chinese Wall with one's head.
Quote
Society is an imaginary construct, and it can never be more than the sum of its individual members.
You could as well say that a Mahler syphony is an imaginary construct and it can never be more than the sum of its individual notes.
Quote
And only in a libertarian society can you 1) decide for yourself what the best thing in life are 2)decide to how to obtain them and 3)obtain them without being prohibited by any one else.
Society being, as you just stated, just an imaginary construct, it follows that a libertarian one is just a mindgame among others. Ok, let's play it.
Even in such a society what you say wouldn't be true, because, regardless of the social and political arrangements, there will always be people who:
1) decide for themselves that the best things in their life belong to others
2) decide to obtain them by removing them from their owner
and this clearly prevents them from
3) obtaining them without being prohibited by anyone else
since they will always be prohibited doing so by policemen and judges.
Quote
Being the result of a democratic process is does mean an act of government is justified. In this case, I'd answer that the city council has no right to prohibit garbage. The garbage thrower's neighbors can sue him for nuisance, but that it's, because no one else is being harmed by his actions.
IOW, the pestilence and disease-spreading risks associated with garbage piling in Naples, both well-noted hard facts, harm no one but the garbage-thrower and his neighbours. Are you being serious?
Quote
As for Switzerland--if a country protects child molesters (ie Roman Polanski) and assists in hiding Nazi loot, then you'll forgive me if I don't admire it.
Welcome to the real world, where there are no perfect countries.
I'm not familiar with the legal technicalities of Polanski's case so I can't comment about it. But if your reference to Nazi loot is an allusion to the Nazi Swiss bank accounts, then this is an issue where the behavior of both banks and Swiss government strikes me as libertarian by the book.
Setting up and operating a bank account is a voluntary contract betwen two consenting parties. The secrecy of the account is part and parcel of that contract and another part violating it would be a clear intrusion in the private business of the former two. Unless, of course, a legally-constituted court of law, to whose pronouncements both contracting parties have voluntarily agreed to subject themselves, decides that not revealing the details of the said bank account is a clear and present threat to physically harm someone.
AFAIK, this is far from being the case with the Nazi bank accounts.
Quote
In fact, the anti-littering is a sign of petty minded tyranny.
If promoting and preserving a clean and healthy environment for its citizens makes a government petty-mindedly tyrannic then I pray for this tyranny taking over my country ASAP.
Quote from: kishnevi on July 30, 2010, 06:36:25 PM
And you seem to be missing something important: while Mr. Mayor has no right to tell you what to do with your garbage, your neighbors do. Enforcement should be with them, and not with the government, and only if they choose to do so. Government should intervene only if there is no other way to protect life or liberty, and then do so in the least intrusive way.
You want to live in a neighborhood where there are no rules, except what you neighbor takes it into his mind to try to enforce on you? What if your neighbor decides to operate a business out of his home, you don't want a zoning restriction to forbid this? You want to go out there and tell him that you don't like being woken up at 3am by the sound of a pneumatic wrench. How are you going to "enforce" that if he tells you to go screw yourself? What if your other neighbor, the one operating a brothel next door tells you your Mozart interferes with his scheduled orgies (buzz kill effect)?
In any case, it is very easy to advocate for a system which has never been implemented in civilized human history (except perhaps in contemporary Afghanistan) and claim it is morally superior.
As I said, you're securely in the category of raving loon.
Quote from: kishnevi on July 30, 2010, 06:36:25 PM
do you want your neighbors not to leave garbage on their lawns because they respect you, or do you want them not to leave garbage on the lawn only because they don't want to be fined by the local zoning board?
I want my neighbors to abide by the law. None of them is dutybound to respect me, but all of them are dutybound to observe the law. That they do so because they have a civic sense stemming from their own conscience and developed by education or simply because they fear being fined makes no difference to me as long as the streets are clean and safe.
Quote from: kishnevi on July 30, 2010, 06:36:25 PM
Think of it this way: do you want your neighbors not to leave garbage on their lawns because they respect you, or do you want them not to leave garbage on the lawn only because they don't want to be fined by the local zoning board?
Actually, I'd rather take my chances with a municipal government. They usually have more constraints put on them than the little tinpot dictators that typically run HOAs. The power that HOAs weild is pretty scary.
Quote from: Florestan on July 31, 2010, 04:44:54 AM
Reality and facts show that accumulating pile upon pile of garbage in the streets is a serious threat to the health (i.e, life) of citizens. I suggest you take a half-hour walk in Naples to witness directly libertarianism in action with regard to throwing garbage.
Actually, the situation is Naples is a result of a government backed monopoly: government limits competition and then can not ensure that an acceptable level of service is maintained.
Quote
That's an unwarranted generalization. History is full of people in power who renounced it voluntarily for one reason or another.
And even fuller of people who refused to renounce it or renounced it only when force was applied. Cincinnatus was celebrated because he was unusual.
Quote
Agreed. But that doesn't make enforcing morality a bad thing per se, just as fighting terrorism being a handy excuse for violating civil rights doesn't make fighting terrorism a bad thing per se. There is use and abuse and what should be feared is not power in itself but its abuse.
Let me ask you a question: Who gets to choose the morality, and why is it moral for someone to be allowed to choose and then impose that morality on other people?
I would submit that imposing--that is, enforcing, a morality on someone else is itself an immoral act.
Quote
Strange. On one hand, libertarians view people as moral, rational and enlightened persons, oriented voluntarily towards their good and that of their fellow men; on the other hand, their morality, rationality and enlightenment ceases when they happen to hold an office in the government, in which case they turn into predators bent on consolidating their power by all means and at any cost.
I struck out a phrase in your original post (see strike-through) to point out the more accurate way of describing the libertarian position--people work for what they see as their own good, which may or may not coincide with the good of others. If they do good for others, it is either because they view their own good tied up with the good of others or because achieving their own goal happens to produce good for others.
And since people act for their own good, it's easy to see why libertarians don't trust people in power: they act for their own benefit, which normally means increasing their power and authority.
Libertarians don't assume that people are moral, rational, enlightened, etc. Because people are not necessarily moral, we must guard against power being asserted over other people; and the best way to safegaurd that is to limit the amount of power they can wield in the first place.
Quote
Besides, hard facts that goes contrary to libertarian claims are oftenly ignored. It's a hard fact that libertarianism was largely rejected by each and every society since recorded history. It's a hard fact that the Libertarian Party US has won, since its founding in 1971, between less than 0.1% and 1.1% of the popular vote in the presidential elections. It's thus a hard fact that the vast majority of people, since the dawn of civilization up to our present days, had and has no use for libertarianism. Yet libertarians are still busy at trying to convince them otherwise. It's like trying to break down the whole Great Chinese Wall with one's head.
May I suggest that we devotees of classical music not use the popular appeal of an idea as a standard to judge things by?
As to your main point--libertarianism as a movement and political philosophy may have its roots in the nineteenth century but it actually is a product of the twentieth century--in fact, within the lifetime of many people now living. It's not strange that is has spread so little, but rather that it has spread so far within one generation.
Quote
You could as well say that a Mahler syphony is an imaginary construct and it can never be more than the sum of its individual notes.
No, because a symphony is not composed of individuals acting independently of each other.
Quote
Society being, as you just stated, just an imaginary construct, it follows that a libertarian one is just a mindgame among others. Ok, let's play it.
Even in such a society what you say wouldn't be true, because, regardless of the social and political arrangements, there will always be people who:
1) decide for themselves that the best things in their life belong to others
2) decide to obtain them by removing them from their owner
and this clearly prevents them from
3) obtaining them without being prohibited by anyone else
since they will always be prohibited doing so by policemen and judges.
I have alluded to the limits of individual rights--no harm to others. It's expressed formally in libertarian literature as the Non-initiation of Force--you can not initiate force against each other. So the robber would violate the rule, but those defending themselves and their property against him would not be, since the use of force was started by him.
Quote
IOW, the pestilence and disease-spreading risks associated with garbage piling in Naples, both well-noted hard facts, harm no one but the garbage-thrower and his neighbours. Are you being serious?
Well, they certainly harm the neighbors, don't they?
And if they harm someone is not a neighbor, the garbage thrower will find himself sued by someone who got sick from that garbage. Remember, a government that does not enforce morality will still help people defend their own rights, by having an impartial court system. Just because there is no zoning board to fine him does not mean others would not be able to make him stop or pay damages.
Quote
Welcome to the real world, where there are no perfect countries.
I'm not familiar with the legal technicalities of Polanski's case so I can't comment about it. But if your reference to Nazi loot is an allusion to the Nazi Swiss bank accounts, then this is an issue where the behavior of both banks and Swiss government strikes me as libertarian by the book.
Setting up and operating a bank account is a voluntary contract betwen two consenting parties. The secrecy of the account is part and parcel of that contract and another part violating it would be a clear intrusion in the private business of the former two. Unless, of course, a legally-constituted court of law, to whose pronouncements both contracting parties have voluntarily agreed to subject themselves, decides that not revealing the details of the said bank account is a clear and present threat to physically harm someone.
AFAIK, this is far from being the case with the Nazi bank accounts.
If promoting and preserving a clean and healthy environment for its citizens makes a government petty-mindedly tyrannic then I pray for this tyranny taking over my country ASAP.
The Polanksi case boils down to this: the US asked them to extradite him because he is a fugitive from justice, having fled to Europe to avoid being sentenced for molesting a teenage girl. The Swiss refused to do so on grounds that are preposterous on their face.
The Nazi bank accounts boils down to this: the banks knew, or should have known, that the funds deposited with them were the results of looting, graft, and extortion. They were therefore aiding and abetting a criminal enterprise, and privacy and contract law does not shield them for not acting appropriately. And failure to reveal the names results in a threat (actually, it continues a threat already put into practice) to property rights of the people who were originally robbed by the Nazis.
Quote from: kishnevi on August 01, 2010, 09:09:34 PM
Actually, the situation is Naples is a result of a government backed monopoly: government limits competition and then can not ensure that an acceptable level of service is maintained.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.
Quote
And even fuller of people who refused to renounce it or renounced it only when force was applied.
That's human nature and no political scheme will change it.
Quote
people work for what they see as their own good, which may or may not coincide with the good of others. If they do good for others, it is either because they view their own good tied up with the good of others or because achieving their own goal happens to produce good for others.
How about love and self-sacrifice, two hard facts of history that fall completely outside the above criteria?
Quote
And since people act for their own good, it's easy to see why libertarians don't trust people in power: they act for their own benefit, which normally means increasing their power and authority. Libertarians don't assume that people are moral, rational, enlightened, etc. Because people are not necessarily moral, we must guard against power being asserted over other people; and the best way to safegaurd that is to limit the amount of power they can wield in the first place
This fear of power and authority which borders on phobia strikes me as completely irrational. Power in itself, devoid of any context, is a meaningless concept. Power can be used for good things (such as building opera houses or maintaining public order) or for bad things (such as emprisoning people who speak against the government or going at war with a nation that never attacked you). History shows that usually the good and the bad are mixed. A rational and pragmatic approach would be to maximize the good and minimize the bad --- of course, to the extent that the built-in limitations of human beings permit. This means checks and balances, constitutions, laws, elections and, last but not least, the will of the people to abide by the rules. But just because people in the government might do bad things is in no way a legitimate reason to take from them the power to do good things.
Quote
.May I suggest that we devotees of classical music not use the popular appeal of an idea as a standard to judge things by?
Your analogy doesn't work.
Classical music is not a political ideology but a very real thing, a hard fact of history that's been around for almost 1,000 years. One can expect it will continue its existence as long as our civilization will survive.
Governmental power in one form or another (against which libertarians argue and wish to do without) is another very real thing, a hard fact of history that's been around since recorded history. One can expect it will continue its existence as long as mankind will survive.
It is exactly in this sense I say that libertarianism has been rejected by practice: no society has ever had a government of the type libertarians advocate.
Quote
As to your main point--libertarianism as a movement and political philosophy may have its roots in the nineteenth century but it actually is a product of the twentieth century--in fact, within the lifetime of many people now living. It's not strange that is has spread so little, but rather that it has spread so far within one generation.
1.1% at its highest isn't that far. Anyway, I believe it will spread only thus far as many people are out there with an inclination to disregard history and its lessons and to think that the libertarian utopia is the cure to all the problems we face. My estimate is less than 5%.
For balance, I hasten to add that the socialist utopia, equally blind to the lessons of history, is apparently much more succesful. A puzzling fact indeed.
Quote
No, because a symphony is not composed of individuals acting independently of each other.
Neither is a society, libertarian wishful thinking notwithstanding.
QuoteAnd if they harm someone is not a neighbor, the garbage thrower will find himself sued by someone who got sick from that garbage. Remember, a government that does not enforce morality will still help people defend their own rights, by having an impartial court system.
Well, of course if my neighbor throws garbage on my lawn and doesn't cease to do so after my friendly request I'll sue him. This is common-sense. But this also suppose there is a law prohibiting throwing garbage in any other place than the one specifically designed for this purpose, on the basis of which a court will fine him and force to remove the garbage. Following libertarian logic, just because my neighbor voted no such law himself and signed no specific contract binding him to observe it means he will reject out of hand the law itself and the court that upholds it. Such a law being voted by anyone else than he is a violation of his right. At this point I can already hear you: by throwing garbage on my lawn he violated my property. Certainly. But whose property is an entire street or avenue? Whose property is a park?
QuoteThe Nazi bank accounts boils down to this: the banks knew, or should have known, that the funds deposited with them were the results of looting, graft, and extortion. They were therefore aiding and abetting a criminal enterprise, and privacy and contract law does not shield them for not acting appropriately. And failure to reveal the names results in a threat (actually, it continues a threat already put into practice) to property rights of the people who were originally robbed by the Nazis.
Then the most libertarian way to deal with it is for the real owners of those funds or their legal inheritors to sue the bank where they are deposited for violating their property rights and obtain a court injunction for restoring them to their legal owner. The Swiss government has nothing to do with it and is dutybound to take action if and only if a bank refuses to complain with such an injunction.
Quote from: kishnevi on July 30, 2010, 06:42:58 PM
Well, you demanded I produce a case in which government did not intervene. Since (as you ought to know, if you don't) government always intervene, it's not possible to produce such a case.
And I referred you to the interventions made by President Hoover in the period 1929-31 (by the Hoover, not by the Fed). That's part of the historical record. Read up on it if you aren't familiar with it.
To the first point, if you admit that it is not possible to produce such a case, on what do you base your assertion that the market would clear "all at once"? You are basing your policy suggestions/preferences not on any empirical evidence, but rather on misplaced religious faith. And once again, I must say that you have steadfastly refused to define what "all at once" means. Why is that?
To the second point about the actions taken by the Hoover Administration, you really should provide the evidence to support your case;
you are the one offering this as a basis for your argument. The fact that you do not clearly illustrates that you are not familiar with the historical record and do not understand how economic policy works. If you dare to write about what the Hoover adminstration did, it will only serve to demolish your so-called "libertarian" philosophy further. (I'm especially interested in things other than Smoot-Hawley, incidentally.)
Facts can certainly be pesky in that they tend not to support ideological positions very well , and that is why you absolutely refuse to rely on them in any of your arguments.
Sorry, I missed this one.
Quote from: kishnevi on August 01, 2010, 09:09:34 PM
Who gets to choose the morality,
Reality and human experience. It has been noted (since the history began and in almost all societies) that man is a social animal. It has been noted that certain behaviors and actions are likely to produce such harmful effects in the society that, had they been given free way, no sooner than that society would have collapsed completely. Empirical evidence, practical experience and hard facts being thus recorded and reflected upon, it has been concluded that some sort of barrier must be effected against certain behaviors and actions if human civilization is to flourish and endure. Usually, the barrier has been twofold: educate the people about the harmful effects of the said behaviors and actions and coerce those who would not give them up voluntarily to do so. Depending on particular religions, worldviews and time frames, different societies have had different approaches to these two tasks, from brutal to mild, from tolerant to repressive and from aristocratic to democratic and everything in between --- but there never was and there never is a society under the sun that did / does without them altogether.
Hoover is not my example, much like Obama embracing and expanding Bush's government spending, FDR took Hoover's start and ran with it. That depression lasted until WWII.
Harding I think is a better model, for Libertarian principles - there was a depression in 1920-21 he cut spending, cut taxes, allowed business losses to occur but the market corrected (including lower unemployment) much faster than what happens under Keynesian policies.
Quote from: kishnevi on July 30, 2010, 10:48:29 AM
being a democratic process does not justify a law that impinged on the rights of other people. Such laws are merely the signs of a tyrannical majority.
To quote the definition by Cows:
PURE DEMOCRACY
You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.
REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the
milk.
I don't claim that democracy is a perfect system. Actually I reject the very existence of such a system other than on a purely theoretical level. But fairness requires that democracy, a real system operating in the real world, be not compared with ideological constructs bearing no ressemblance whatsoever to the reality, but with other equally real systems operating in the real world. And such a comparison favors it by a wide margin. Not in that it yields the best results, because certain highly aristocratic / authoritarian regimes such as Venice or Prussia resulted in much good for their people, but in that it prevents the worst results (as far as human limitations allows).
Democracy, as it has been said so well, is the worst political system with the exception of all others.
Quote from: Franco on August 02, 2010, 06:48:32 AM
Hoover is not my example, much like Obama embracing and expanding Bush's government spending, FDR took Hoover's start and ran with it. That depression lasted until WWII.
Harding I think is a better model, for Libertarian principles - there was a depression in 1920-21 he cut spending, cut taxes, allowed business losses to occur but the market corrected (including lower unemployment) much faster than what happens under Keynesian policies.
Finally, something a bit more substantive. The Great Depression did indeed last until the war, though by every economic measure things started improving, albeit too slowly, in 1933, and continued improving until the second dip came in 1937 as new taxes hit and the New Deal was pulled back. The fact that trade was not addressed appropriately didn't help. (Of course, by the mid-30s, it was too late politically.) Hoover's policies did not become expansionary/activist (or whatever term one prefers) until after the 1932 budget, complete with tax increases to balance the budget, was passed.
The contrafactual argument that the economy would have done better if the government had done less, and preferably nothing, is simply hollow. The Hoover administration's not even tepid response, and the protectionist bent in Congress, contributed to years of decline before anything was done. The economic reality of the war years shows more clearly what should have been done all along: vast expansion in aggregate demand in the form of government spending, on a scale far larger than was contemplated by even FDR. Of course, it should not have been on war making capacity, at least ideally, but the results are pretty clear. The 1948 depression that was inevitable as war spending was pulled back, was minor compared to what came before (eg, both in 1920-1921 and the Great Depression), and despite continued government involvement in the economy, or perhaps because of it, it was quite short. It is also worth pointing out another incontrovertible fact: downturns have been far milder by pretty much every measure since the 1946 Employment Act passed was passed. Only length of unemployment can really considered to be worse, and then only when not compared to the 30s.
The 1920-21 situation is a bit different. I've seen several references to it in the last several months, as though it offers some kind of particularly useful guidance for what we are going through now, or some type of meaningful refutation to Keynesian policy in economic downturns. One major problem is that the scale of the problem didn't match what started in 1929, and that was partly caused by one other significant difference. In 1920, the financial system was nowhere near as leveraged and intertwined as it was at the end of the decade. Now, whether one wants to attribute the vast increase in leverage and complexity to avaricious banks, or to ineffective government, or both, or neither, it happened. It is not really possible to state that the policies followed by Harding offer a model for anything, or that a similar policy response to the Great Depression would have worked. (Incidentally, cutting taxes in a downturn is quintessentially Keynesian, even though the term did not exist in the early 20s. Of course, reducing non-military government expenditures even more than taxes is not Keynesian.) Also, I don't know if one can say that the policies that helped create the financial situation of 1929 are worth emulating.
Quote from: Florestan on August 02, 2010, 01:35:52 AM
That's human nature and no political scheme will change it.
Libertarianism recognizes that, and attempts to minimize the effect this particular trait of human nature--the lure of power--has in the real world.
Quote
How about love and self-sacrifice, two hard facts of history that fall completely outside the above criteria?
I wrote:
they view their own good tied up with the good of others I consider that statement to include love and self sacrifice.
Quote
This fear of power and authority which borders on phobia strikes me as completely irrational. Power in itself, devoid of any context, is a meaningless concept. Power can be used for good things (such as building opera houses or maintaining public order) or for bad things (such as emprisoning people who speak against the government or going at war with a nation that never attacked you). History shows that usually the good and the bad are mixed. A rational and pragmatic approach would be to maximize the good and minimize the bad --- of course, to the extent that the built-in limitations of human beings permit. This means checks and balances, constitutions, laws, elections and, last but not least, the will of the people to abide by the rules. But just because people in the government might do bad things is in no way a legitimate reason to take from them the power to do good things.
Your argument assumes that the good things government does can only be done by government. Whereas in fact, they can be done as well or better by voluntary cooperation among like minded individuals or by businessmen operating in a free market--building opera houses is one such thing.
The only exception to this would be defense of individual rights against aggression--police, military defense, and a court system to mediate/arbitrate/judge disputes among individuals. There is one wing of libertarianism (anarchic capitalism) which believes that even this does not need to be done by government, but can adequately supplied by businesses operating in a completely free market. I don't agree with that one. The other wing is minarchism, which believes that only government can adequately perform those jobs, but nothing more. That's the wing of libertarianism to which I adhere.
But by limiting government in such a fashion, one would get rid of the bad uses of power.
Quote
Your analogy doesn't work.
Classical music is not a political ideology but a very real thing, a hard fact of history that's been around for almost 1,000 years. One can expect it will continue its existence as long as our civilization will survive.
Governmental power in one form or another (against which libertarians argue and wish to do without) is another very real thing, a hard fact of history that's been around since recorded history. One can expect it will continue its existence as long as mankind will survive.
Crime and disease are also hard facts of history. I'm sure you don't think that would serve as a sufficient argument for keeping them around, if we had a choice.
Quote
It is exactly in this sense I say that libertarianism has been rejected by practice: no society has ever had a government of the type libertarians advocate.
I'll turn the argument around the other way: history has shown that all governments end up abusing power and denying individual rights, even if they don't start that way.
Quote
1.1% at its highest isn't that far. Anyway, I believe it will spread only thus far as many people are out there with an inclination to disregard history and its lessons and to think that the libertarian utopia is the cure to all the problems we face. My estimate is less than 5%.
History teaches that governments do much more harm than good, unless they are severely limited. The fact that a vast majority of people don't recognize this should not be surprising when you remember that the education system and mass media are geared to promote the view that government is good (partly by design, especially with education, partly by accident or by motives that reinforce the result although not actually linked to any design to promote the role of government).
Quote
For balance, I hasten to add that the socialist utopia, equally blind to the lessons of history, is apparently much more succesful. A puzzling fact indeed.
Well. at least we agree on one thing!
Quote
Neither is a society, libertarian wishful thinking notwithstanding.
Can society farm or build a house? Of course not--only individual people can do that. That they may act in a concerted fashion does make the sum of those individuals something greater than them.
A further thing that guides libertarian thinking in this matter is the use that the idea that society is a thing separate from its individual members is the abuse done to the idea of society to justify almost every dictatorial and totalitarian regime.
Quote
Well, of course if my neighbor throws garbage on my lawn and doesn't cease to do so after my friendly request I'll sue him. This is common-sense. But this also suppose there is a law prohibiting throwing garbage in any other place than the one specifically designed for this purpose, on the basis of which a court will fine him and force to remove the garbage. Following libertarian logic, just because my neighbor voted no such law himself and signed no specific contract binding him to observe it means he will reject out of hand the law itself and the court that upholds it. Such a law being voted by anyone else than he is a violation of his right. At this point I can already hear you: by throwing garbage on my lawn he violated my property. Certainly. But whose property is an entire street or avenue? Whose property is a park?
Well, in Libertarianworld, there would be no such thing as public property. The streets and parks would be owned by specific individuals, or a group of such individuals, who would pay for the upkeep and would be at liberty to charge others for the right of use. This might be one single person, or a group of people cooperating in ownership--for instance, all the people who live on Street A might be members of a co-op which owns the street and which shared out the expenses for upkeep. And that owner/owners would enforce their rights against a garbage throwing individual.
Note alos that in Libertarianworld, there would be no law such as you are speaking of, so the idea of consenting to it is irrelevant.
Quote
Then the most libertarian way to deal with it is for the real owners of those funds or their legal inheritors to sue the bank where they are deposited for violating their property rights and obtain a court injunction for restoring them to their legal owner. The Swiss government has nothing to do with it and is dutybound to take action if and only if a bank refuses to complain with such an injunction.
True. But we are not talking about a hypothetical situation in Libertarianworld, but what actually happened in real life.
As for Naples and its garbage, here's a very short version: government restricted competition in the waste removal business; the Mafia piggybacked on that state of monopoly, and then did not deliver anything more than the most minimal level of service, and the government has been unable to correct the situation.
Quote from: Florestan on August 02, 2010, 06:42:12 AM
Sorry, I missed this one.
Reality and human experience. It has been noted (since the history began and in almost all societies) that man is a social animal. It has been noted that certain behaviors and actions are likely to produce such harmful effects in the society that, had they been given free way, no sooner than that society would have collapsed completely. Empirical evidence, practical experience and hard facts being thus recorded and reflected upon, it has been concluded that some sort of barrier must be effected against certain behaviors and actions if human civilization is to flourish and endure. Usually, the barrier has been twofold: educate the people about the harmful effects of the said behaviors and actions and coerce those who would not give them up voluntarily to do so. Depending on particular religions, worldviews and time frames, different societies have had different approaches to these two tasks, from brutal to mild, from tolerant to repressive and from aristocratic to democratic and everything in between --- but there never was and there never is a society under the sun that did / does without them altogether.
Agreement with most, if not all of that. But you have not come close to proving that government is the only way that can be accomplished, or even the best way of being accomplished. Also note that minarchist libertarianism does essentially adopt that view, but limits the enforcement to morality only to those that things that have direct harm to the rights of others. The fact that adultery makes for bad consequences does not mean government or anyone else has the right to prohibit it.
Quote from: Florestan on August 02, 2010, 06:53:37 AM
I don't claim that democracy is a perfect system. Actually I reject the very existence of such a system other than on a purely theoretical level. But fairness requires that democracy, a real system operating in the real world, be not compared with ideological constructs bearing no ressemblance whatsoever to the reality, but with other equally real systems operating in the real world. And such a comparison favors it by a wide margin. Not in that it yields the best results, because certain highly aristocratic / authoritarian regimes such as Venice or Prussia resulted in much good for their people, but in that it prevents the worst results (as far as human limitations allows).
Democracy, as it has been said so well, is the worst political system with the exception of all others.
Churchill, wasn't it?
However, the argument you give only carries you so far. That a system is the best yet invented is not an argument that we should not try to find a system that is even better.
Also, you are not giving enough attention to the true problem of democracy: tyranny of the majority, which is the point of the political cows illustration. Power wielded by one person over many is tyranny; but so is power wielded by many over one.
Quote from: kishnevi on August 02, 2010, 06:36:29 PMAlso, you are not giving enough attention to the true problem of democracy: tyranny of the majority, which is the point of the political cows illustration. Power wielded by one person over many is tyranny; but so is power wielded by many over one.
You say that as if it is a notion that has not already received the attention it is due. U.S. democracy addresses tyranny in the constitution by delineating rights that cannot be abridged, even by federal law.
If you want to avoid the "tyranny" of the municipal zoning board you can find a place to live in an unincorporated area. Some people chose to live is as much isolation as they can find. I don't think it is healthy for our society.
Quote from: Scarpia on August 02, 2010, 06:58:10 PM
You say that as if it is a notion that has not already received the attention it is due. U.S. democracy addresses tyranny in the constitution by delineating rights that cannot be abridged, even by federal law.
In theory. Practice is quite another thing--take, for example, the Jim Crow laws (picking something that is both fairly obvious and (we hope) safely in the past) a century ago.
Ultimately, a Bill of Rights is worthless if the majority is not willing to have it enforced against themselves.
Quote
If you want to avoid the "tyranny" of the municipal zoning board you can find a place to live in an unincorporated area. Some people chose to live is as much isolation as they can find. I don't think it is healthy for our society.
And even in some unicorporated areas you'll find zoning boards or their equivalents.
And I would reject your phrasing in the last sentence. It's not what is "healthy for our society" but what is "healthy for the individuals who live in our society"--although of course what you mean by "health of our society" feeds into the "health of the individuals who live in our society". Or to put it differently, a healthy society is one that is populated in the main by healthy individuals.
Quote from: kishnevi on August 02, 2010, 05:52:02 PM
I wrote:they view their own good tied up with the good of others I consider that statement to include love and self sacrifice.
Love, maybe. But self-sacrifice? A soldier who covers up his comrades so that they can escape an ambush while he dies, or someone who saves a person from a building fire and burns himself badly in the process, or Jan Palach, the Czech student who immolated himself in protest to the Communist dictatorship --- how do they fit in "their own good tied up with the good of others" scheme?
Quote
Your argument assumes that the good things government does can only be done by government.
Not at all. I'm all in favor of the free-market. But it's a strange thing that for libertarians anyone should be free to enter the market but the government.
Quote
Whereas in fact, they can be done as well or better by voluntary cooperation among like minded individuals or by businessmen operating in a free market--building opera houses is one such thing.
Putting aside the fact that businessmen have showed no inclination that I am aware of to build opera houses from scratch --- that they may endow already existing buildings and personnel with donations is nevertheless true --- it's highly unlikely that the like-minded individuals here on GMG would have the financial means to build one by voluntary cooperation. Just as it's highly unlikely that a community living nearby a flooding river would have the financial means to build a dam by voluntarily cooperation.
Quote
The only exception to this would be defense of individual rights against aggression--police, military defense, and a court system to mediate/arbitrate/judge disputes among individuals. There is one wing of libertarianism (anarchic capitalism) which believes that even this does not need to be done by government, but can adequately supplied by businesses operating in a completely free market. I don't agree with that one.
I'm glad you don't, because it's sheer lunacy: whomever can afford to pay gets his own private police, justice and army. Welcome back to feudalism, but without any of its redeeming features.
Quote
Crime and disease are also hard facts of history. I'm sure you don't think that would serve as a sufficient argument for keeping them around, if we had a choice.
There are tested and working methods for fighting them. There are also tested and working methods for limiting the abuse of power.
Quote
I'll turn the argument around the other way: history has shown that all governments end up abusing power and denying individual rights, even if they don't start that way.
Well, history has also shown that when the abuse of power was no more bearable, people overthrew that government. But curiously enough, not even after overthrowing an extremely abusive government did the people choose to have a minarchic government.
Quote
History teaches that governments do much more harm than good, unless they are severely limited.
You libertarians are enamored of abrupt statements with no nuances, aren't you?
A much more historically accurate position is this:
History teaches that governments can do just as much harm as good, or even more, , unless they are limited. Quote
The fact that a vast majority of people don't recognize this should not be surprising when you remember that the education system and mass media are geared to promote the view that government is good (partly by design, especially with education, partly by accident or by motives that reinforce the result although not actually linked to any design to promote the role of government).
IOW, a vast majority of people, including some, if not most, of the greatest minds ever, were either just brainwashed dimwits unable to see, and act for, their own good, or just voracious predators whose hunger for power was paralleled only by their capacity to abuse it. The world lay in darkness and ignorance until libertarians came to save it from itself.
QuoteCan society farm or build a house? Of course not--only individual people can do that.
Can an individual start anew what's preceded him? Can he build the Parthenon again? Can he write Shakespeare's plays again? Can he compose Mahler's Ninth again?
Each individual is born in a world not of his own making. He is born in a specific time and place and in a society with a culture, customs, traditions, mores and manners, everything that makes up civilization, that are the result of centuries of evolution. Of course he is free to reject some or all of them but this doesn't make the society less real anymore than an individual breaking up all ties with his family makes that family non-existent.
Quote
That they may act in a concerted fashion does make the sum of those individuals something greater than them.
Seems we have another point of agreement.
Quote
A further thing that guides libertarian thinking in this matter is the use that the idea that society is a thing separate from its individual members is the abuse done to the idea of society to justify almost every dictatorial and totalitarian regime.
An idea being abused is no indication about its veracity or falsehood.
Quote
Well, in Libertarianworld, there would be no such thing as public property. The streets and parks would be owned by specific individuals, or a group of such individuals, who would pay for the upkeep and would be at liberty to charge others for the right of use. This might be one single person, or a group of people cooperating in ownership--for instance, all the people who live on Street A might be members of a co-op which owns the street and which shared out the expenses for upkeep. And that owner/owners would enforce their rights against a garbage throwing individual.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but... do you mean in that world of yours I'll have to pay a fee to cross the street to the other side, or to walk down the Main Street?
How about the air we breathe, or the Mississipi River, or the Atlantic Ocean? Who's going to own them?
Quote
But we are not talking about a hypothetical situation in Libertarianworld, but what actually happened in real life.
Why exactly! Finally you reached the crux of the matter: even Disneyland is more real than Libertarianworld.
Quote
As for Naples and its garbage, here's a very short version: government restricted competition in the waste removal business; the Mafia piggybacked on that state of monopoly, and then did not deliver anything more than the most minimal level of service,
So it's really government's fault, not the fault of those many uneducated and irresponsible citizens who throw their garbage wherever they so please: streets, beaches, parks etc.
Quote
and the government has been unable to correct the situation.
Precisely because the government is weak. A strong government would do without both Mafia and garbage-throwers. Why do you think Munich or Stockholm are much cleaner and safer than Naples?
Quote from: kishnevi on August 02, 2010, 06:36:29 PM
Churchill, wasn't it?
At least he's credited with saying it.
Quote
That a system is the best yet invented is not an argument that we should not try to find a system that is even better.
Agreed but we are talking here not about a better car or a better aerial navigation system. We're talking about organizing a human society --- and any attempt at doing that by
fiat, disregarding or discarding both the practical wisdom that we gained in centuries of history and the inherent, built-in limitations of human beings results in disaster, as the Communist experiment showed clearly. Libertarianism is no different in this respect, since the type of man it preaches is no less imaginary than the type of man Communists wanted to create.
Quote
Also, you are not giving enough attention to the true problem of democracy: tyranny of the majority, which is the point of the political cows illustration. Power wielded by one person over many is tyranny; but so is power wielded by many over one.
This sounds very good rhetorically. However, may I ask you when was the last time that a tyrannical majority forced you by their vote to do something you wouldn't do voluntarily and what was it about?
Don't get me wrong: I fear tyranny as much as you do (I know by personal experience what it means), but I think anarchy is no better, since it will finally result in tyranny as well. Steering the middle course between these two extremes by pragmatic corrections and adjustments seems to me the most rational way. Think of it this way: in this real world of ours there will always be power and authority and the most pragmatic scheme that's been devised for its limitation is to have a single one, called government, resulting from periodic, free and fair elections, and which is both reasonably strong to make sure the rules that have been agreed upon in respect to what constitutes a civilized and humane society are known and enforced and reasonably weak not to try to modify these rules or discard them altogether without the consent of the governed ("
to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed"), whose exercise is decentralized as far as possible and whose aim is to make possible, assist and protect what we call "the civil society", free-market (of which I am a supporter) included.
Quote from: kishnevi on August 02, 2010, 08:24:40 PM
take, for example, the Jim Crow laws (picking something that is both fairly obvious and (we hope) safely in the past) a century ago.
Let's imagine we live in Libertaria, where there is no such thing as public property and society, and everything is privately-owned. Furthermore, only those actions or behaviors that result in direct physical harm to anyone, or in a violation of his property rights, are illegal.
In that land, a pub-owner who forbids black people to enter his pub has every right to do so, since by prohibiting them to enter his lawful property he neither violates their own property rights nor does he physically harm them in any way.
In that land, a bus driver who refuses to carry black people or confines them to the backseats only has every right to do so, since by imposing these rules on his lawful property he neither violates their own property rights nor does he physically harm them in any way.
In that land, a school board that refuses to admit black children has every right to do so, since by prohibiting them to enter its lawful property it neither violates their own property rights nor does it physically harm them in any way.
I could go on like that
ad infinitum.
As an aside, may I ask what do you think of Adam Smith?
Quote from: Florestan on July 26, 2010, 02:15:51 AM
I certainly agree being labeled capitalist
Actually I must ammend this: I am more of a free-marketeer than a capitalist for the obvious reason that free-market and capitalism are not always friends; actually, they are mostly enemies, since the golden dream of most capitalists is twofold: (1) to produce cheap and sell expensive and (2) to eliminate his competitors --- two things which are strongly resisted by a genuine free-market.
Quote from: Florestan on August 02, 2010, 10:18:37 PM
Love, maybe. But self-sacrifice? A soldier who covers up his comrades so that they can escape an ambush while he dies, or someone who saves a person from a building fire and burns himself badly in the process, or Jan Palach, the Czech student who immolated himself in protest to the Communist dictatorship --- how do they fit in "their own good tied up with the good of others" scheme?
Because they value the specific benefit so highly that they consider giving their own lives a worthwhile exchange, or, in a negative way, they consider the loss of something to be so bad that they would rather die than live without it.
Quote
Not at all. I'm all in favor of the free-market. But it's a strange thing that for libertarians anyone should be free to enter the market but the government.
Government has two unique qualities--it sets up the conditions in which the market exists, and it can apply force at its discretion without fear of being opposed by counterforce. Both of those mean it can not compete as an equal in a free market.
Besides, the role of government is not to participate in a market--it is to make sure the market can operate fairly.
Quote
. There are also tested and working methods for limiting the abuse of power.
And all of them have at some point failed to limit the abuse of power--usually because in gaurding against one form of abuse, they allow other forms to develop unimpeded.
Quote
Well, history has also shown that when the abuse of power was no more bearable, people overthrew that government. But curiously enough, not even after overthrowing an extremely abusive government did the people choose to have a minarchic government.
There is at least one instance where they have done so--the Articles of Confederation which constituted the formal basis for the United States of America prior to adoption of the current Constitution. The story of how the Constitution replaces the Articles is long and sometimes sordid one, but the most pertinent fact here is that, despite the propaganda of the Federalist (pro-Constitution) side of the debate, which has been adopted almost wholesale in the texts most students read in high school history, the government of the US under the Articles was by no means a failure or in danger of collapsing.
Quote
History teaches that governments can do just as much harm as good, or even more, , unless they are limited.
And they all end up losing those limits.
Quote
IOW, a vast majority of people, including some, if not most, of the greatest minds ever, were either just brainwashed dimwits unable to see, and act for, their own good, or just voracious predators whose hunger for power was paralleled only by their capacity to abuse it. The world lay in darkness and ignorance until libertarians came to save it from itself.
Rhetorical overstatement. Replace what I have placed in italics in the above with this:
normal people who over time gradually explored political philosphy rather like people took two millenia or more to understand that the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa.
Quote
Can an individual start anew what's preceded him? Can he build the Parthenon again? Can he write Shakespeare's plays again? Can he compose Mahler's Ninth again?
No, but that is not because of "society". That's because Phidias sculpted, Shakespeare wrote, Mahler composed--in other words, individuals did those things.
Quote
Each individual is born in a world not of his own making. He is born in a specific time and place and in a society with a culture, customs, traditions, mores and manners, everything that makes up civilization, that are the result of centuries of evolution. Of course he is free to reject some or all of them but this doesn't make the society less real anymore than an individual breaking up all ties with his family makes that family non-existent.
Quote
Seems we have another point of agreement.
Sorry, but we don't. I didn't realize it until I read your reply, but I mistakenly left out a "not" in that sentence, so what I mean was the exact opposite of what you thought I was saying.
Mea culpa mea culpa mea maxima culpa.That does not mean society exists as anything more than an aggregate of individuals. It's a logical impossibility for it to exist like that. Take away all the individuals who compose the society in quesiton and you get--nothing. If society was something more than the aggregate, you would have something remaining over after all those individuals were taken away.
Quote
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but... do you mean in that world of yours I'll have to pay a fee to cross the street to the other side, or to walk down the Main Street?
Possibly. More likely you would belong to a co-operative, and pay dues, from which dues the street would be kept in good repair; and if it was a street you did not normally walk or drive on, you would pay a transient fee of some sort. And if you did not, you would not have the right to use that street.
Libertarian world would be a lot like many small towns--but the "government" would exist through willing co-operation among neighbors, not because of any coercive element.
Quote
How about the air we breathe, or the Mississippi River, or the Atlantic Ocean? Who's going to own them?
The air-- no one. Rivers and seas or oceans have shores; the shores have owners, and the owners set the rules about who can access the rivers and oceans and how they can do so, for those that wish to access the rivers and oceans through that particular shoreline.
Quote
So it's really government's fault, not the fault of those many uneducated and irresponsible citizens who throw their garbage wherever they so please: streets, beaches, parks etc.
Think of it this way: they are leaving the garbage on the street because of how badly government has messed up .
Quote
Precisely because the government is weak. A strong government would do without both Mafia and garbage-throwers. Why do you think Munich or Stockholm are much cleaner and safer than Naples?
Government here in the US is rather definitely a strong government, but it can't really control either the Mafia or the garbage throwers--which suggests that other elements are at work. After all, in the minds of many people, Germans are among the peoples of the world least likely to litter--a dreadful lack of order if you are the German of the popular imagination.
Quote
Agreed but we are talking here not about a better car or a better aerial navigation system. We're talking about organizing a human society --- and any attempt at doing that by fiat, disregarding or discarding both the practical wisdom that we gained in centuries of history and the inherent, built-in limitations of human beings results in disaster, as the Communist experiment showed clearly. Libertarianism is no different in this respect, since the type of man it preaches is no less imaginary than the type of man Communists wanted to create.
Libertarianism in fact tries to base itself upon a very realistic view of human nature, and tries to resolve the problems of government revealed by history.
Quote
This sounds very good rhetorically. However, may I ask you when was the last time that a tyrannical majority forced you by their vote to do something you wouldn't do voluntarily and what was it about?
Dozens of things. Any time a government entity to which I pay taxes spends money gained from taxes, it'squite possibly forcing me to finance something I am against. The US invasion of Iraq is one example. [I don't know your view of that matter. But the relevant point here is that I am forced to contribute to the war effort through my taxes even though I have always opposed it.] There is a slew of such actions I could list for you from all levels of government, national down to local.
Quote
Don't get me wrong: I fear tyranny as much as you do (I know by personal experience what it means), but I think anarchy is no better, since it will finally result in tyranny as well. Steering the middle course between these two extremes by pragmatic corrections and adjustments seems to me the most rational way. Think of it this way: in this real world of ours there will always be power and authority and the most pragmatic scheme that's been devised for its limitation is to have a single one, called government, resulting from periodic, free and fair elections, and which is both reasonably strong to make sure the rules that have been agreed upon in respect to what constitutes a civilized and humane society are known and enforced and reasonably weak not to try to modify these rules or discard them altogether without the consent of the governed ("to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed"), whose exercise is decentralized as far as possible and whose aim is to make possible, assist and protect what we call "the civil society", free-market (of which I am a supporter) included.
No argument there, except to say that the only form of government that could actually provide what you express there is a minarchist government.
So you're a libertarian but just don't know it 8)
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2010, 03:41:45 AM
Actually I must amend this: I am more of a free-marketeer than a capitalist for the obvious reason that free-market and capitalism are not always friends; actually, they are mostly enemies, since the golden dream of most capitalists is twofold: (1) to produce cheap and sell expensive and (2) to eliminate his competitors --- two things which are strongly resisted by a genuine free-market.
I'm curious as to how you define the term "capitalist".
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2010, 02:40:37 AM
Let's imagine we live in Libertaria, where there is no such thing as public property and society, and everything is privately-owned. Furthermore, only those actions or behaviors that result in direct physical harm to anyone, or in a violation of his property rights, are illegal.
In that land, a pub-owner who forbids black people to enter his pub has every right to do so, since by prohibiting them to enter his lawful property he neither violates their own property rights nor does he physically harm them in any way.
In that land, a bus driver who refuses to carry black people or confines them to the backseats only has every right to do so, since by imposing these rules on his lawful property he neither violates their own property rights nor does he physically harm them in any way.
In that land, a school board that refuses to admit black children has every right to do so, since by prohibiting them to enter its lawful property it neither violates their own property rights nor does it physically harm them in any way.
I could go on like that ad infinitum.
The answer to all your examples is, with one small modification, yes, they could discriminate.
The modification comes in the third example: in Libertarianworld, there would be no school board, only private schools in competition with each other. So for "school board" substitute "school"..
But remember that you would be free to give your business to a competitor who does not discriminate, and advocate publicly that people should not patronize businesses that discriminate. You just could not force someone not to discriminate.
And you'd be free to donate to schools that don't discriminate as your way of helping make sure that poor/minority households are able to provide their children with good educations.
Here's the real point: a laws that mandates segregation is merely the reverse of a law that mandates integration. One forbids you to associate with people you might want to associate with; the other forbids you from not associating with people you might not want to associate with. Same sword, so to speak, just cuts different ways.
Just to make clear--my reference to Jim Crow was in response to a post by Scarpia. He posted that constitutions/bills of rights could always be counted on to keep minorities from being discriminated in some way. I posted to point out one very obvious and large scale episode which the US Bill of Rights should have rendered null and void, but did not.
Quote
As an aside, may I ask what do you think of Adam Smith?
Good write, with mostly good ideas, but sometimes he is more attached to the idea of government than the facts warrant.
My aside: are you familiar with the "Austrian" school of economists, also known as the "Chicago school"?
Quote from: kishnevi on August 03, 2010, 08:44:24 PM
Government has two unique qualities--it sets up the conditions in which the market exists, and it can apply force at its discretion without fear of being opposed by counterforce. Both of those mean it can not compete as an equal in a free market.
Government does this, government does that... What is government more than a sum of people? It's like your idea of society: government cannot do anything, people who hold governmental offices do.
Government doesn't set up anything. Legislatures do. And in most civilized countries there is a clear separation between the two. A government may submit a law project to the parliament, but the ultimate responsibility for its adoption or rejection lies entirely with the latter --- which is not the government.
Maybe you should stop lumping everything under government's umbrella, since it is obvious that by government you mean the executive power, and start seeing things in a more nuanced and realistic way.
I mean, your fear and distrust of governmental power might have been in place in 16-th century Spain, or in 18-th century Prussia, or in Mussolini's Italy --- but we've come a long way since then.
Quote
Besides, the role of government is not to participate in a market--it is to make sure the market can operate fairly.
We agree on that (with the qualification from my part that some governmentally supplied services are legitimate and necessary), but we disagree on how fairness is defined.
Quote
And all of them have at some point failed to limit the abuse of power--usually because in gaurding against one form of abuse, they allow other forms to develop unimpeded.
And what guarantee do libertarians offer that in their world power will not be abused? What guarantee do you have that people craving for power, which will always exist, will not crawl their way in the army, the police and the courts --- which will still exist --- and use them to increase their power? What guarantee do libertarians offer that a president, or prime minister, or chief of staff, or commander-in-chief of the marines will not use the military power at its disposal to overthrow the libertarian order and establish a socialist dictatorship?
More: what if a community, be it a city or an entire state, by the voluntarily association of its members, decides to set up a fascist dictatorship and to extend it at country's level? I suppose they'll be met by force but if they are stronger they will prevail and then you can kiss Libertaria good-bye.
Quote
There is at least one instance where they have done so--the Articles of Confederation which constituted the formal basis for the United States of America prior to adoption of the current Constitution. The story of how the Constitution replaces the Articles is long and sometimes sordid one, but the most pertinent fact here is that, despite the propaganda of the Federalist (pro-Constitution) side of the debate, which has been adopted almost wholesale in the texts most students read in high school history, the government of the US under the Articles was by no means a failure or in danger of collapsing.
Not being American I'm familiar only at a vey basic level with that story, but I suppose that the American Congress wasn't struck with instant madness and decided to replace a working and succesful form of government just because they so fancied.
Now, if you imply that somehow the Federalists wanted more power, and prevailed --- that is a historical proof that even a libertarian order of things, such as you suggest it was defined in the Articles of Confederation, has no built-in guarantees for enduring and not being overthrown.
Quote
Sorry, but we don't. I didn't realize it until I read your reply, but I mistakenly left out a "not" in that sentence, so what I mean was the exact opposite of what you thought I was saying. Mea culpa mea culpa mea maxima culpa.
I suspected that actually. Just wanted to be sure. :)
Quote
That does not mean society exists as anything more than an aggregate of individuals. It's a logical impossibility for it to exist like that. Take away all the individuals who compose the society in quesiton and you get--nothing. If society was something more than the aggregate, you would have something remaining over after all those individuals were taken away.
So, literature, fine arts, music, architecture, laws, folklore, bridges, monuments, philosophy, religion etc --- all these amounts to nothing for you?
By this logic, the Athenian society during Pericle's time, or the Roman society during Octavian's reign, or the Elizabethan society, or the Golden Century Spanish society are just figments of imagination --- because all the individuals that were supposed to form them are dead since long ago.
Quote
Possibly. More likely you would belong to a co-operative, and pay dues, from which dues the street would be kept in good repair; and if it was a street you did not normally walk or drive on, you would pay a transient fee of some sort. And if you did not, you would not have the right to use that street.
I suppose then that every street would have barriers at both ends where each passerby or driver would stop for being checked (by whom?) for his street residence permit, absent which he will be charged (how?) the corresponding fee, absent which he will not be allowed (how? by whom?) to walk or drive down the street. Possibly the barriers would even go alongside the whole street, since one side of it would belong to the association of odd-numbered houses and the other side to the association of even-numbered houses.
Do you really not realize how impractical and outright absurd is this?
Quote
Libertarian world would be a lot like many small towns--but the "government" would exist through willing co-operation among neighbors, not because of any coercive element.
And who or what guarantees that (a) willing cooperation will exist and (b) it will endure?
Quote
The air-- no one. Rivers and seas or oceans have shores; the shores have owners, and the owners set the rules about who can access the rivers and oceans and how they can do so, for those that wish to access the rivers and oceans through that particular shoreline.
This is already happening.
Quote
Think of it this way: they are leaving the garbage on the street because of how badly government has messed up .
I disagree completely. Anyway, let me ask you this: is there under the sun an evil for which the government is not responsible?
Quote
Libertarianism in fact tries to base itself upon a very realistic view of human nature,
Ok then, please explain me the libertarian conception of human nature in general, with no reference to politics and economy.
Quote
Any time a government entity to which I pay taxes spends money gained from taxes, it'squite possibly forcing me to finance something I am against. The US invasion of Iraq is one example. [I don't know your view of that matter. But the relevant point here is that I am forced to contribute to the war effort through my taxes even though I have always opposed it.]
You might have something here. For the record, although I think Saddam Hussein's overthrow is a good thing in itself, I see the Second Iraq War as neither legitimate nor necessary and certainly its enormous human and financial costs and its basically zero achievements make it a disaster.
But my question was formulated this way: when did a tyrannical majority forced you by their vote to do something you wouldn't do voluntarily? AFAIK, there was no popular vote about (a) going at war with Iraq and (b) supporting it by taxes.
I might be mistaken, but I am under the impression that G. W. Bush went to war without the approval of the Congress, which would be a clear violation of the US Constitution and a good reason for the Congress starting the impeachment procedure. That the Congress tacitly aquiesced and made no such move only aggravates the matter. But, in this situation, why didn't libertarians and other people who opposed the war sue Bush and the Congressmen for violating the Constitution? Isn't there in the US some sort of court whose purpose is to defend the constitution and see to it that each and every law or executive action respect it? This is the case in most European contries, Romania included, and in not a few instances the Romanian government has been forced to renounce some action or to withdraw a law project from the parliament because they were unconstitutional.
So you can't blame the Iraq blunder on democracy: had it been subjected to popular vote it would have been certainly rejected out of hand. Blame it on a government and a parliament who disregarded the very same constitution under whose provisions they were supposed to operate.
Quote
No argument there, except to say that the only form of government that could actually provide what you express there is a minarchist government.
No it isn't. The government which most resembles my description is found in the
cantons system of Switzerland, with the
landen system in Germany and Austria coming close. Neither of these governments is minarchic.
Besides, there is no universal solution and what works wonders in a country can spell the ruin of another as history has shown in a most blatant way in the case of the First Spanish Republic (1873-74). It devised a rather libertarian cantonal system which resulted in both a civil war and a revolution that brought about the almost complete dissolution of the country. Only the restoration of a strong, centralized monarchic government saved Spain from being wiped off the map.
Quote
So you're a libertarian but just don't know it 8)
There was a time, in my younger years, when I flirted with libertarianism because personal freedom and free market operating under a strong moral order are two ideas which I cherish. But the more I read libertarian political theorists, the more I began to understood that it is an utopia, that it has no resemblance whatsoever to the real world, that it is in fact an inverted marxism and that it wouldn't work. So I parted with it.
If I were to define myself politically, I would say Christian-Democracy suits me best and it's basically the type of liberalism Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn expounded and vindicated in "Menace of The Herd" and "Liberty or Equality".
Quote from: kishnevi on August 03, 2010, 09:02:11 PM
I'm curious as to how you define the term "capitalist".
Someone who has the financial and material means to set up, manage and operate a business, be it a bakery, a car factory or a cell phone network.
Quote from: kishnevi on August 03, 2010, 09:11:45 PM
Just to make clear--my reference to Jim Crow was in response to a post by Scarpia.
I am aware of that, but what I suggest is that you as a libertarian have no moral ground to oppose Jim Crow laws, because (a) they have been created and enacted by the voluntary association of Southern constituencies, (b) don't violate anyone's property rights and (c) don't harm anyone physically.
Quote
Good write, with mostly good ideas, but sometimes he is more attached to the idea of government than the facts warrant.
Thank you. I asked that because I've met libertarians who held him as one of their own, just because of the "invisible hand" metaphor. My impression is that by strict libertarian standards Adam Smith is a socialist --- but then again I suppose so am I. :)
Quote
My aside: are you familiar with the "Austrian" school of economists, also known as the "Chicago school"?
The Austrian School is not quite the same thing as the Chicago School, is it? The former preceded the latter by half a century, IIRC.
I'm not an economist so I can't say I'm familiar with them, since economical arcanes that goes beyond what my own limited degree of common-sense, reason and thinking can understand elude me --- but I've read some Hayek and Mises; actually Mises Institute's website is still in my bookmarks list.
Good write, some good ideas, but they are much more attached to the economical side of the human beings than the facts warrant. :)
Case in point: Mises' "consumer king", which is as reductionist a view of man as Marx's "proletarian".
A you have noticed by now, I view society as more than a strictly functional space where consenting adults voluntarily associate in order to perform this or that economical activity --- and in this respect I find their views on man and society rather narrow-focused and unrealistic. But then again, that is what I, as a non-specialist, inferred from reading not their strictly economical works, but their more politically oriented ones. I might be wrong.
An economist which is much closer to my own views is Wilhelm Roepke. I'm aware that none other than Mises himself considered Roepke to be an "Austrian" but IMO he was none such. Consider these paragraphs from Roepke's "A Humane Economy", with which I completely agree:
"
The questionable things of this world come to grief on their nature, the good ones on their own excesses. Conservative respect for the past and its preservation are indispensable conditions of a sound society, but to cling exclusively to tradition, history, and established customs is an exaggeration leading to intolerable rigidity. The liberal predilection for movement and progress is an equally indispensable counterweight, but if it sets no limits and recognizes nothing as lasting and worth preserving, it ends in disintegration and destruction. The rights of the community are no less imperative
than those of the individual, but exaggeration of the rights of the community in the form of collectivism is just as dangerous as exaggerated individualism and its extreme form, anarchism. Ownership ends up in plutocracy, authority in bondage and despotism, democracy in arbitrariness and demagogy. Whatever political tendencies or currents we choose as examples, it will be found that they always sow the seed of their own destruction when they lose their sense of proportion and overstep their limits. In this field, suicide is the normal cause of death.
The market economy is no exception to the rule.Indeed, its advocates, in so far as they are at all intellectually fastidious, have always recognized that the sphere of the market, of competition, of the system where supply and demand move prices and thereby govern production, may be regarded and defended only as part of a wider general order encompassing ethics, law, the natural conditions of life and happiness, the state, politics, and power. Society as a whole cannot be ruled by the laws of supply and demand, and
the state is more than a sort of business company, as has been the conviction of the best conservative opinion since the time of Burke. Individuals who compete on the market and there pursue their own advantage stand all the more in need of the social and moral bonds of community, without which competition degenerates most grievously. As we have said before, the market economy is not everything. It must find its place in a higher order of things which is not ruled by supply and demand, free prices, and competition. It must
be firmly contained within an all-embracing order of society in which the imperfections and harshness of economic freedom are corrected by law and in which man is not denied conditions of life appropriate to his nature. Man can wholly fulfill his nature only by
freely becoming part of a community and having a sense of solidarity with it. Otherwise he leads a miserable existence and he knows it. "
(
Wilhelm Roepke,
A Humane Economy. The Social Framework of the Free Market, Henry Regnery Co., Chicago 1960, pp. 90-91). Online here (http://mises.org/books/Humane_Economy_Ropke.pdf)
Doesn't sound very "Austrian" to me.
Quote from: Florestan on August 04, 2010, 02:16:16 AM
I am aware of that, but what I suggest is that you as a libertarian have no moral ground to oppose Jim Crow laws, because (a) they have been created and enacted by the voluntary association of Southern constituencies, (b) don't violate anyone's property rights and (c) don't harm anyone physically.
Actually, both (a) and (b) are incorrect.
A very large group (the newly freed blacks)was prevented, much of the time through force, from voting; which voids the voluntary association part. To have a voluntary association, it's not enough that people do not need to join if they do not wish to, but it also requires that those people who do wish to join can do so.
Segregation laws violated the right of association and the right of property. Suppose you have a businessman who wished to serve customers of both races, but was prohibited from doing so by the Jim Crow laws. (Granted, probably few white businessmen in that era would probably match that description, but there must have been some who would have felt that being able to serve customers of both races would help profitability due to local circumstances--and I would assume that any black business owner would have been very happy to serve both races.) His right to associate with customers of both races, and his right to invite people of both races onto his own property, were thereby violated.
Quote
Thank you. I asked that because I've met libertarians who held him as one of their own, just because of the "invisible hand" metaphor. My impression is that by strict libertarian standards Adam Smith is a socialist --- but then again I suppose so am I. :)
I think "collectivist" is the currently preferred term, since it covers a variety of "sins" including racism.
I will be investigating Herr Roepke. I should mention that in the quote you provide, the only part I would dissent from is the last two sentences--and that primarily as a result of my own quirky psychological nature. I am extremely introverted, with a much lower need for interaction with other humans, and in fact, a much lower tolerance of human interaction, than average. I find those times when I am not part of a community to be very enjoyable, indeed.
Quote
A you have noticed by now, I view society as more than a strictly functional space where consenting adults voluntarily associate in order to perform this or that economical activity --- and in this respect I find their views on man and society rather narrow-focused and unrealistic. But then again, that is what I, as a non-specialist, inferred from reading not their strictly economical works, but their more politically oriented ones. I might be wrong.
I think it's more correct to describe my view as thinking of society as a strictly functional space where free invidivuals voluntarily associate to achieve certain ends according to their individual preferences--which are certainly not limited to anything economic or even political.
And, to be clear, I am as likely to talk about society, but not when I need to be precise about it. Society is simply the aggregate of individuals in a given space and time, and the supposed actions/needs/etc. of society are really just the aggregate actions/needs/etc. of those inviduals. Athens in the age of Pericles (to take an example you mention in one of your other posts today) produced a lot of high quality philosophy, art, and literature, but all of that was the work of inviduals. Athenian society did not sculpt the Athena of the Parthenon--Phidias did that. Athenian society did not think out the philosophy of Plato--Plato did that. Athenian society did not write Oedipus Rex--Sophocles did that.
It's rather like one of us referring to a thread on this forum. We call it a thread, but that's really just a shorthand term for the accumulation of posts by various individual GMG members on the thread topic and spinoffs therefrom. So it is with the term "society"--just a shorthand way of referring to the accumulation of people in a specific time and place.
Quote from: Florestan on August 04, 2010, 01:30:05 AM
Government does this, government does that... What is government more than a sum of people? It's like your idea of society: government cannot do anything, people who hold governmental offices do.
Government doesn't set up anything. Legislatures do. And in most civilized countries there is a clear separation between the two. A government may submit a law project to the parliament, but the ultimate responsibility for its adoption or rejection lies entirely with the latter --- which is not the government.
Maybe you should stop lumping everything under government's umbrella, since it is obvious that by government you mean the executive power, and start seeing things in a more nuanced and realistic way.
We are perhaps not using the word "government" to mean quite the same thing. I know in Britain at least there is a usage that uses the word to refer to the Prime Minister and Cabinet. I am not using it that way. The usual American meaning includes the legislature and judiciary as well as the executive, and that's how I am using it here. Another definition is derived from Ayn Rand, who used the word to refer to the entity/entities which have the monopoly of legal violence in a given area. That would include, for instance, the police.
In fact, I would go a little farther than that. One definition I came up with was
on this order--Government is the set of institutions which protect individuals of a certain time and place from aggression (that is, unlawful force or fraud), which allow the market to function and provide structure for human interaction. That would include such things as central banks, the bodies which oversee stock exchanges, labor unions and professional associations, etc. It could even include such things as FIFA and whoever organizes the weekly book reading club, if you want to stretch it. The key point is that some things have formal rules and are acknowledged to wield power, while others are not, but just as effectively protect rights and mediate disputes within their own sphere of action.
Quote
I mean, your fear and distrust of governmental power might have been in place in 16-th century Spain, or in 18-th century Prussia, or in Mussolini's Italy --- but we've come a long way since then.
Unfortunately not far enough.
Quote
And what guarantee do libertarians offer that in their world power will not be abused? What guarantee do you have that people craving for power, which will always exist, will not crawl their way in the army, the police and the courts --- which will still exist --- and use them to increase their power? What guarantee do libertarians offer that a president, or prime minister, or chief of staff, or commander-in-chief of the marines will not use the military power at its disposal to overthrow the libertarian order and establish a socialist dictatorship?
No such guarantee is offered. People will always try to gain power over others.
But what libertarianism offers is this: such power grabs won't be for much. Limit government as much as possible, and not only will the propsect of grabbing power be much less enticing, but the things that could be done with power are that much less.
Stalin could kill millions because he had the resources of the Soviet state at his beck and call. Suppose he came to power in a state that did not have those resources? The death toll would have been far less--if it even began, for it is possible the state would have been so week that it would not be able to implement a totalitarian program.
Quote
Not being American I'm familiar only at a vey basic level with that story, but I suppose that the American Congress wasn't struck with instant madness and decided to replace a working and succesful form of government just because they so fancied.
Congress did not decide to replace anything. The Congress that existed uner the Articles of Confederation was, as the result of a concerted political campaign, persuaded to call for a constitutional convention to work out amendments to the Articles. The convention met and in disregard of the congressional mandate, decided to produce an entirely new constitution to replace the Articles and then persuaded the various thirteen ex colonies to ratify their constitution. The men behind this movement wanted a a strong central government, the existence of which would benefit most of those that speculated in western lands (western meaning in modern terms the Midwest) and creditors, especially creditors of the state and national governments--both groups would benefit from a stronger central government.
There is a considerable amount of literature on the subject, which is often labeled revisionist. I don't know of a single source to suggest to you to cover the entire matter, but I would recommend what are called the AntiFederalist papers--the folks who didn't think a new constitution was needed and tried to block ratification of the new document.
Quote
So, literature, fine arts, music, architecture, laws, folklore, bridges, monuments, philosophy, religion etc --- all these amounts to nothing for you?
By this logic, the Athenian society during Pericle's time, or the Roman society during Octavian's reign, or the Elizabethan society, or the Golden Century Spanish society are just figments of imagination --- because all the individuals that were supposed to form them are dead since long ago.
See my answer to your other post on this aspect.
Quote
I suppose then that every street would have barriers at both ends where each passerby or driver would stop for being checked (by whom?) for his street residence permit, absent which he will be charged (how?) the corresponding fee, absent which he will not be allowed (how? by whom?) to walk or drive down the street. Possibly the barriers would even go alongside the whole street, since one side of it would belong to the association of odd-numbered houses and the other side to the association of even-numbered houses.
Do you really not realize how impractical and outright absurd is this?
Not as impractical as you think. I don't know about Europe, but automatic toll collecting via electronic cards, etc. is in use in many places here in the US, and would only need some further refinements to carry the matter to the level you are speaking of.
Quote
I disagree completely. Anyway, let me ask you this: is there under the sun an evil for which the government is not responsible?
Plenty of things can not be blamed on government, but often enough government intervention will be seen after the fact to have made the problem worse, or at least not improve matters.
Quote
Ok then, please explain me the libertarian conception of human nature in general, with no reference to politics and economy.
A free individual who is able to choose his own goals for himself and act to achieve those goals without interference from anyone else so long as he does not use force or fraud to achieve those ends.
Quote
You might have something here. For the record, although I think Saddam Hussein's overthrow is a good thing in itself, I see the Second Iraq War as neither legitimate nor necessary and certainly its enormous human and financial costs and its basically zero achievements make it a disaster.
But my question was formulated this way: when did a tyrannical majority forced you by their vote to do something you wouldn't do voluntarily? AFAIK, there was no popular vote about (a) going at war with Iraq and (b) supporting it by taxes.
I might be mistaken, but I am under the impression that G. W. Bush went to war without the approval of the Congress, which would be a clear violation of the US Constitution and a good reason for the Congress starting the impeachment procedure. That the Congress tacitly aquiesced and made no such move only aggravates the matter. But, in this situation, why didn't libertarians and other people who opposed the war sue Bush and the Congressmen for violating the Constitution? Isn't there in the US some sort of court whose purpose is to defend the constitution and see to it that each and every law or executive action respect it? This is the case in most European contries, Romania included, and in not a few instances the Romanian government has been forced to renounce some action or to withdraw a law project from the parliament because they were unconstitutional.
So you can't blame the Iraq blunder on democracy: had it been subjected to popular vote it would have been certainly rejected out of hand. Blame it on a government and a parliament who disregarded the very same constitution under whose provisions they were supposed to operate.
I suppose in Europe it might be possible to overestimate the number of Americans actively opposed to the war in Iraq; just as now it might be possible to overestimate the number of people in the "Tea Party" movement.
However, while Congress did not issue a formal declaration of war, Congress did approve the invasion in a way that satisfies any legal requirements, and a large majority of Americans also supported it. And indeed, when some supporters lost their enthusiams, it was because of the incompetence with which the war was originally run. People may have approved of the war, but did not like the way the war was prosecuted. as time went on.
Quote
No it isn't. The government which most resembles my description is found in the cantons system of Switzerland, with the landen system in Germany and Austria coming close. Neither of these governments is minarchic.
Besides, there is no universal solution and what works wonders in a country can spell the ruin of another as history has shown in a most blatant way in the case of the First Spanish Republic (1873-74). It devised a rather libertarian cantonal system which resulted in both a civil war and a revolution that brought about the almost complete dissolution of the country. Only the restoration of a strong, centralized monarchic government saved Spain from being wiped off the map.
Suppose the country had divided up. What would have been the bad consequences of such an act. It sounds like your assuming a unified Spain would be a good thing; I'm not.
Quote
If I were to define myself politically, I would say Christian-Democracy suits me best and it's basically the type of liberalism Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn expounded and vindicated in "Menace of The Herd" and "Liberty or Equality".
Ah, another name to look up. Thank you.
Quote from: kishnevi on August 04, 2010, 07:00:30 PM
Actually, both (a) and (b) are incorrect.
A very large group (the newly freed blacks)was prevented, much of the time through force, from voting; which voids the voluntary association part. To have a voluntary association, it's not enough that people do not need to join if they do not wish to, but it also requires that those people who do wish to join can do so.
Segregation laws violated the right of association and the right of property. Suppose you have a businessman who wished to serve customers of both races, but was prohibited from doing so by the Jim Crow laws. (Granted, probably few white businessmen in that era would probably match that description, but there must have been some who would have felt that being able to serve customers of both races would help profitability due to local circumstances--and I would assume that any black business owner would have been very happy to serve both races.) His right to associate with customers of both races, and his right to invite people of both races onto his own property, were thereby violated.
Fair enough. But racial seggregation is morally wrong not --- or not solely --- because it violates property rights and the right to voluntary association, but first and foremost because it violates the innate, God-given dignity of each and every human being and reduce an entire group of people to the status of sub-humans or worse still, objects, to be treated and disposed of as their masters so please. This essential, God-given dignity of a person does in no way whatsoever depend on that person's property rights, because even an Indian lepper beggar who owns nothing is still a human being, nor on that person's right of association, because even a hermit living in the woods and avoiding any contact with the world is still a human being.
How about voluntary slavery, that existed in ancient world? According to libertarian standards, if John agrees voluntarily to be the slave of Jack, then this is no more slavery, but a contract between two consenting parts, and as such perfectly legal and moral. According to my philosophy, it might very well be legal but it will still be immoral.
Quote
I will be investigating Herr Roepke.
Please do. He's worthwile reading, even if you disagree with him. Besides, Roepke was the man behind West Germany's post-WWII economic boom, so he might know a thing or two about free market.
A good starting place is here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_R%C3%B6pke): you can find a large online collection of his writing (hosted at Mises Institute, of all places :) ) and some well-written essays about him and his vision.
This (http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=792&theme=home&page=1&loc=b&type=cttf) is interesting as well.
Quote
I should mention that in the quote you provide, the only part I would dissent from is the last two sentences--and that primarily as a result of my own quirky psychological nature. I am extremely introverted, with a much lower need for interaction with other humans, and in fact, a much lower tolerance of human interaction, than average. I find those times when I am not part of a community to be very enjoyable, indeed.
Well, maybe this is one reason you are a libertarian, since libertarianism is in tune with your innate dispositions.
For the record, I'm not much of a gregarious person myself.
Quote
Society is simply the aggregate of individuals in a given space and time, and the supposed actions/needs/etc. of society are really just the aggregate actions/needs/etc. of those inviduals. Athens in the age of Pericles (to take an example you mention in one of your other posts today) produced a lot of high quality philosophy, art, and literature, but all of that was the work of inviduals. Athenian society did not sculpt the Athena of the Parthenon--Phidias did that. Athenian society did not think out the philosophy of Plato--Plato did that. Athenian society did not write Oedipus Rex--Sophocles did that.
Of course, but Pericles, Phidias, Plato, Sophocles did not appear out of the blue sky in Athens. They were born, raised and educated in a society which valued laws, sculpture, philosophy and tragedy, which viewed them as some of the loftiest goals that a man can pursue and which encouraged them to carry on their creative urges. Had Plato been born in contemporary Afghanistan I very much doubt he would have had any idea of philosophy, let alone engaged in it himself.
Quote from: kishnevi on August 04, 2010, 08:52:52 PM
The usual American meaning includes the legislature and judiciary as well as the executive, and that's how I am using it here.
Thanks for clarifying.
I'm not familiar with American-style politics so I speak only from an European poiint of view.
In most European counries, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary are strictly and clearly separated, they have different purposes, they act in different ways and, at any given time there is both overlap and tension, if not outright conflict, between them. Accordingly, it is meaningless and contrafactual to lump together all the three branches under the term "government" and say "government does this or that".
For instance, and this happens especialy in presidential or semi-presidential republics such as France or Romania, not infrequently the executive is right-wing while the majority in the parliament is left-wing, or the other way around. This result obviously in conflict between these two powers, as a law that the parliament pass might be opposed by the president or prime-minister or a particular cabinet member, while an executive law proposal or action might be opposed by the parliament. Should we say then, accoridng to your view, that "the government" is both in favor of, and strongly opposed to , a certain law or action?
Quote
Another definition is derived from Ayn Rand, who used the word to refer to the entity/entities which have the monopoly of legal violence in a given area. That would include, for instance, the police.
Ayn Rand is one of the libertarians that turned me away from libertarianism. Her ideas are so far-fetched, when not outright contrived, her books are imbued with such a simplistic and reductionist moralism, her characters so static and unreal that it can be safely stated that having such advocates libertarianism needs no more critics. :D
Quote
In fact, I would go a little farther than that. One definition I came up with was
on this order--Government is the set of institutions which protect individuals of a certain time and place from aggression (that is, unlawful force or fraud), which allow the market to function and provide structure for human interaction. That would include such things as central banks, the bodies which oversee stock exchanges, labor unions and professional associations, etc. It could even include such things as FIFA and whoever organizes the weekly book reading club, if you want to stretch it. The key point is that some things have formal rules and are acknowledged to wield power, while others are not, but just as effectively protect rights and mediate disputes within their own sphere of action.Unfortunately not far enough.
By this point of view everything is government, including the Libertarian Part US. Forgive me for being blunt, but this is sheer nonsense.
Quote
No such guarantee is offered.
Thanks for acknowledging it.
Quote
But what libertarianism offers is this: such power grabs won't be for much. Limit government as much as possible, and not only will the propsect of grabbing power be much less enticing, but the things that could be done with power are that much less.
Stalin could kill millions because he had the resources of the Soviet state at his beck and call. Suppose he came to power in a state that did not have those resources? The death toll would have been far less--if it even began, for it is possible the state would have been so week that it would not be able to implement a totalitarian program.
Since army will continue to exist in Libertaria, and it would actually have to be a very strong, well-equiped and well-trained one, since Libertaria's neighbors are more likely than not to view it as an easy prey, because of its weak government and weak social structures and ties, there will always be the prospect of a military dictatorship lurking around the corner.
Quote
Congress did not decide to replace anything. The Congress that existed uner the Articles of Confederation was, as the result of a concerted political campaign, persuaded to call for a constitutional convention to work out amendments to the Articles. The convention met and in disregard of the congressional mandate, decided to produce an entirely new constitution to replace the Articles and then persuaded the various thirteen ex colonies to ratify their constitution. The men behind this movement wanted a a strong central government, the existence of which would benefit most of those that speculated in western lands (western meaning in modern terms the Midwest) and creditors, especially creditors of the state and national governments--both groups would benefit from a stronger central government.
There is a considerable amount of literature on the subject, which is often labeled revisionist. I don't know of a single source to suggest to you to cover the entire matter, but I would recommend what are called the AntiFederalist papers--the folks who didn't think a new constitution was needed and tried to block ratification of the new document.
I'll investigate the matter more deeply. Thank you for the reading suggestion.
Quote
I don't know about Europe, but automatic toll collecting via electronic cards, etc. is in use in many places here in the US, and would only need some further refinements to carry the matter to the level you are speaking of.
In Europe as well, but it's one thing to pay a toll every 200 miles on a highway and quite another to pay a toll every 10 feet, as you cross the street or change the lane.
Quote
A free individual who is able to choose his own goals for himself and act to achieve those goals without interference from anyone else so long as he does not use force or fraud to achieve those ends.
Admitting that such an individual ever existed at all (which I doubt) there will always be infants, children, teen-agers, or mature disabled people (physically or mentally) that will escape this definition. So, I stand by my main point: libertarianism rests on a utopian view of man.
QuoteSuppose the country had divided up. What would have been the bad consequences of such an act. It sounds like your assuming a unified Spain would be a good thing; I'm not.
Aside from the fact that a libertarian should recoil in horror at the very idea of civil war or revolution, much more so of both of them taking place simultaneously, since it means (a) massive and systematic physical harm inflicted on people and (b) gross violations of the rights of property and association, it can be infered from the above that for you not only such thing as "society", but also such things as "country" and "fatherland" are imaginary constructs. It can be infered from the above and from your advocating the idea that cities and towns be turned up in nothing more than a patchwork of private properties, that for you such concepts as "social bonds", "civic solidarity", "loyalty to one's community or country", "common history", "national cultural heritage" or indeed any concept having to do with anything other than explicitly agreed upon contracts between consenting parties, is equally imaginary and you have no use for it. If this be the case, then, unfortunately for you and for libertarianism at large, it is exactly these concepts you reject that have shaped the human history since its inception till today and they are also the reason why libertarianism will never be more than a fringe movement: it goes against experience and reality.
FWIW, contemporary Spain, who managed to survive the catastrophy of 1873-75, is almost a federal state, granting high degrees of autonomy for its constituent provinces.
Quote
Ah, another name to look up. Thank you.
You're welcome.
A good summary of his thinking, written by himself, can be found here (http://www.phillysoc.org/Portland.htm).
Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_von_Kuehnelt-Leddihn) by scrolling down to "External links" you can find online his two books I refered to in my previous post. They are rather lengthy but worthwile reading, even for a libertarian.
Curiously enough, they are hosted by the same Mises Institute and this puzzles me, because he was a devout Catholic, a proud aristocrat and a staunch monarchist heaping praises on the old Austrian empire --- IOW, anything but a libertarian.
NB I will be away from internet in the next three days so please be patient about my replies.
Quote from: Florestan on August 05, 2010, 03:01:09 AM
Thanks for clarifying.
I'm not familiar with American-style politics so I speak only from an European poiint of view.
In most European counries, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary are strictly and clearly separated, they have different purposes, they act in different ways and, at any given time there is both overlap and tension, if not outright conflict, between them. Accordingly, it is meaningless and contrafactual to lump together all the three branches under the term "government" and say "government does this or that".
For instance, and this happens especialy in presidential or semi-presidential republics such as France or Romania, not infrequently the executive is right-wing while the majority in the parliament is left-wing, or the other way around. This result obviously in conflict between these two powers, as a law that the parliament pass might be opposed by the president or prime-minister or a particular cabinet member, while an executive law proposal or action might be opposed by the parliament. Should we say then, according to your view, that "the government" is both in favor of, and strongly opposed to , a certain law or action?
I think what this boils down to is simply that what you refer to as government we Americans think of as one of the three branches of government--the executive branch. We wouldn't generally speak of "the government" being for or against anything, except possibly in foreign relations, when dealing with foreign countries ("Ambassador X presented the views of the United States Government to President Z in a frank discussion.")
Quote
Ayn Rand is one of the libertarians that turned me away from libertarianism. Her ideas are so far-fetched, when not outright contrived, her books are imbued with such a simplistic and reductionist moralism, her characters so static and unreal that it can be safely stated that having such advocates libertarianism needs no more critics. :D
To be very accurate, Rand was not a libertarian, and she heavily criticized the libertarian movement several times, mostly because libertarians took some of her ideas and rejected others, and allowed themselves to associate with People Of Whom Ayn Rand Disapproved.
Her philosophy is Objectivism, and I think it fair to say that some of the best arguments in Objectivism are simply pointing out what self proclaimed Objectivists do. I agree with your opinion of her novels, and I find most of her philosophy self important bosh, but she did have some very good insights, and her nonfiction, even though it is self important bosh, was well written from the standpoint of literary style--she is one of the best polemicists I have ever read--while no one else has come forward with anything even close to convincing as a defense of the free market and capitalism which does not involve God and therefore appeals to atheists--so her influence remains. If you haven't read some of her non fiction work--her essays, such as the collection The Virtue of Selfishness--I urge you to do so, simply as a matter of literary enjoyment. The substance may make you want to throw the book against the wall from time to time--so throw it against the wall, pick it back up and continue to read.
Quote
By this point of view everything is government, including the Libertarian Part US. Forgive me for being blunt, but this is sheer nonsense.
No need to apologize; you do have a valid point. I should mention I developed this definition while arguing with the anarchist capitalists--the ones who think we don't need to have a government. I was trying to point out to them that even if one abolished all formal government, there would still be institutions and entities who would carry out the functions of government (police and courts, for instance)--an informal government, if you will--and that all things considered, it is far better to have a formal government than an informal government.
Quote
Since army will continue to exist in Libertaria, and it would actually have to be a very strong, well-equiped and well-trained one, since Libertaria's neighbors are more likely than not to view it as an easy prey, because of its weak government and weak social structures and ties, there will always be the prospect of a military dictatorship lurking around the corner.
Libertarian thinking on this point is conditioned by the original American set up in which the primary military defense was the militia--that is, the citizens of a community are the army. The army would be the citizenry, so a potential military despot would not have a body of soldiers distinct from the public at large. There would those on active duty and those on reserve duty and those too old or too young to do anything beyond serving as a home guard, and the organization would obviously be geared to defensive aims, not offensive warfare. Nor would the neighboring countries find Libertaria easy pickings, either to be conquered or to stay conquered.
Quote
In Europe as well, but it's one thing to pay a toll every 200 miles on a highway and quite another to pay a toll every 10 feet, as you cross the street or change the lane.
Don't know how widespread it is yet in Europe. Here we have systems coming into use by which one has what is in effect a dedicated debit card and an electronic transponder on the car. Drive by a toll location, the transponder does its thing and the amount of the toll is deducted off the debit card. All you need to do is to keep track of the account and make sure you have money in the card. Those that use the toll roads set up this way without paying that way end up being traced by traffic cameras and fined.
Quote
Admitting that such an individual ever existed at all (which I doubt) there will always be infants, children, teen-agers, or mature disabled people (physically or mentally) that will escape this definition. So, I stand by my main point: libertarianism rests on a utopian view of man.
You doubt such people exist? Don't you, every day of your life, choose goals, and act in a way that will help you achieve those goals?
The existence of people who are not ready, or not yet ready, to act as freely choosing inviduals no more challenges libertarianism than they do any other moral system, except those of a totalitarian nature which see all inviduals as wards or property of the state
Quote.
Aside from the fact that a libertarian should recoil in horror at the very idea of civil war or revolution, much more so of both of them taking place simultaneously, since it means (a) massive and systematic physical harm inflicted on people and (b) gross violations of the rights of property and association,
Valid point, but I was merely questioning what seemed to be your premise--that a non-unitary Spain was a bad thing, even if obtained through peaceful means.
Quote
it can be infered from the above that for you not only such thing as "society", but also such things as "country" and "fatherland" are imaginary constructs. It can be infered from the above and from your advocating the idea that cities and towns be turned up in nothing more than a patchwork of private properties, that for you such concepts as "social bonds", "civic solidarity", "loyalty to one's community or country", "common history", "national cultural heritage" or indeed any concept having to do with anything other than explicitly agreed upon contracts between consenting parties, is equally imaginary and you have no use for it. If this be the case, then, unfortunately for you and for libertarianism at large, it is exactly these concepts you reject that have shaped the human history since its inception till today and they are also the reason why libertarianism will never be more than a fringe movement: it goes against experience and reality.
Not so. People are free to relate to each other however they wish, including shared culture, etc. What libertarians insist on is that however you analyze it, it boils down to individuals choosing to associate in that matter. If you want to hand out the national flag for reasons of patriotism, you should be free to do so. But everyone should have the right to refuse to take that flag, and no one should force you to give out that flag if you do not wish to do so.
IOW, all these things are fine, but only up to the point where they become co-ercive. It's the difference between "Would you please help us build a public library because of these good reasons 1, 2, 3, etc." versus "You are obligated to help us build a public library because we have chosen to do so".
Quote
A good summary of his thinking, written by himself, can be found here (http://www.phillysoc.org/Portland.htm).
Interesting, although a first read through suggests he places too much reliance on the idea of natural law, and trusts the idea of experts deciding technical matters too easily, and he doesn't seem to understand that separation of Church and State means you can't have a political set up which takes divine revelation as one of its foundations.
And thank you for the other material you pointed to.
Quote
NB I will be away from internet in the next three days so please be patient about my replies.
Considering all the reading you've pointed my way, I shall not be complaining :)
Quote from: Florestan on August 05, 2010, 01:00:24 AM
Fair enough. But racial segregation is morally wrong not --- or not solely --- because it violates property rights and the right to voluntary association, but first and foremost because it violates the innate, God-given dignity of each and every human being and reduce an entire group of people to the status of sub-humans or worse still, objects, to be treated and disposed of as their masters so please. This essential, God-given dignity of a person does in no way whatsoever depend on that person's property rights, because even an Indian lepper beggar who owns nothing is still a human being, nor on that person's right of association, because even a hermit living in the woods and avoiding any contact with the world is still a human being.
Nothing in that paragraph a libertarian would dissent from. Except the atheist ones would probably omit "God given".
Quote
How about voluntary slavery, that existed in ancient world? According to libertarian standards, if John agrees voluntarily to be the slave of Jack, then this is no more slavery, but a contract between two consenting parts, and as such perfectly legal and moral. According to my philosophy, it might very well be legal but it will still be immoral.
There are four+ basic libertarian attitudes to this.
1)Yes, voluntary slavery is possible. So what?
2) Yes, voluntary slavery is possible, but I'm not comfortable with that idea at all.
3) Voluntary slavery is simply another form of employment contract, and comes with all the protections of such a contract, so it's not really slavery.
4) Slavery is the total subordination of one human to another and therefore can not legally exist.
Although I include it as a possibility, I know of no one who actually takes attitude 1.
3 is the most common. Imagine a contract in which A makes himself into B's employee for one year. A's wages will be paid to his family or put in trust for the end of the year. A gives up, as part of the contract, all power to make choices of his own and gives B absolute right to make all decisions for him. B agrees not only to pay wages but to provide room and board and clothing when needed. A reserves the right to cancel the contract on grounds of physical abuse, non performance by B, etc. or the controlling local law does so alread in the case of all employment contracts. Thus, a contract as close to slavery as possible but with a set duration.
Do you think such an arrangement is morally acceptable, and if so, how do you differentiate it from an similar contract whose duration is set as the life of A.
Quote
Of course, but Pericles, Phidias, Plato, Sophocles did not appear out of the blue sky in Athens. They were born, raised and educated in a society which valued laws, sculpture, philosophy and tragedy, which viewed them as some of the loftiest goals that a man can pursue and which encouraged them to carry on their creative urges. Had Plato been born in contemporary Afghanistan I very much doubt he would have had any idea of philosophy, let alone engaged in it himself.
As true as that may be, it still does not make "society" more than a handy word to describe a group of individuals.
Quote from: kishnevi on August 05, 2010, 08:03:23 AM
I think what this boils down to is simply that what you refer to as government we Americans think of as one of the three branches of government--the executive branch. We wouldn't generally speak of "the government" being for or against anything, except possibly in foreign relations, when dealing with foreign countries ("Ambassador X presented the views of the United States Government to President Z in a frank discussion.")
Hey, but that's exactly what you've been doing all along: lumping legislature, executive and judiciary under the general term "government" and saying: "government does this", "government does that", "government sets up" etc. Now I'm really confused.
Quote
To be very accurate, Rand was not a libertarian, and she heavily criticized the libertarian movement several times, mostly because libertarians took some of her ideas and rejected others, and allowed themselves to associate with People Of Whom Ayn Rand Disapproved.
Her philosophy is Objectivism, and I think it fair to say that some of the best arguments in Objectivism are simply pointing out what self proclaimed Objectivists do. I agree with your opinion of her novels, and I find most of her philosophy self important bosh, but she did have some very good insights, and her nonfiction, even though it is self important bosh, was well written from the standpoint of literary style--she is one of the best polemicists I have ever read--while no one else has come forward with anything even close to convincing as a defense of the free market and capitalism which does not involve God and therefore appeals to atheists--so her influence remains. If you haven't read some of her non fiction work--her essays, such as the collection The Virtue of Selfishness--I urge you to do so, simply as a matter of literary enjoyment. The substance may make you want to throw the book against the wall from time to time--so throw it against the wall, pick it back up and continue to read.
Thanks, I'll give it a try. I do enjoy well-written books even if they are otherwise worthless.
Quote
Libertarian thinking on this point is conditioned by the original American set up in which the primary military defense was the militia--that is, the citizens of a community are the army.
Yes I did infer that. Actually, I believe this is the main reason why libertarianism is so uncommon in Europe: one cannot reasonably adopt as valid and practical in the contemporary world a political philosophy which rests on the peculiar social and economical conditions of a country in the late 18-th century.
Quote
.Don't know how widespread it is yet in Europe. Here we have systems coming into use by which one has what is in effect a dedicated debit card and an electronic transponder on the car. Drive by a toll location, the transponder does its thing and the amount of the toll is deducted off the debit card. All you need to do is to keep track of the account and make sure you have money in the card. Those that use the toll roads set up this way without paying that way end up being traced by traffic cameras and fined.
That's all fine, but my main objection is to the very idea of paying your way through a patchwork of private properties in order to go buying fresh fruits or fish in the market. Libertarianism notwithstanding, a city is not "an aggregate of individuals" who just happen to live in the same time and place. It is not a mere network of streets and homes. In Europe at least, it has public places such as large squares and parks, oftenly featuring public monuments such as statues, fountains, churches etc, where people can meet, walk, talk, have a drink, read a book or a newspaper or whatever else constitute a communal civilized life; these public spaces and the corresponding monuments are oftentimes centuries old and have been planned and build by,
horribile dictu, the government of the time. Who's going to own them? Am I going to have to pay a tolll not only for walking around, say,
Piazza della Signoria in Florence, but also for glancing at the statues therein? And how is the communal life to survive if each and every walk to one's favourite pub downtown results in a cumulated toll of much more than just the two beers one planned to have?
Quote
You doubt such people exist? Don't you, every day of your life, choose goals, and act in a way that will help you achieve those goals?
Of course I do. But think of it this way. No individual was ever asked, let alone gave consent, whether he agrees to (a) being born in a specific ethnicity, (b) being born in a soecific time and place, (c) being born in a specific family, (d) being raised in a specific language and (e) being educated (if at all) in a specific language, by a specific person teaching one or more specific branches of knowledge. Thus, long before an individual reaches the age of consent, he is subject to (1) a multitude of influences from factors which are both inescapable and completely outside his control, and (2) a multitude of interferences from a variety of individuals --- all these factors and individuals concurring to instill in him certain values and shape in his mind a certain worldview. In whatever he will do in his adult age he will always be influenced one or way or another by them and in this respect it can be argued that an individual's choices are never completely free from external influences and interferences. There is no such things as an absolute freedom, neither of choice nor of thought nor of action: freedom always operate within a certain context, i.e. within certain limits. (Mind you, I said nothing about innate inclinations, which no doubt play their part as well in the overall character of an individual)
To illustrate my point, let's take our personal cases: you were not born a libertarian more than I was born a christian-democrat. We did not invent these philosophies --- we discovered them, and chose to adhere to them, in specific times and places, after receiving a specific education and going through specific life experiences, which include social circumstances and a host of individuals, alive and dead. Perhaps had you been born a Romanian in 1972 and I an American in..., our thinking would have been inverted; and certainly had we both been born in Somalia we would have been none of the above.
Quote
Valid point, but I was merely questioning what seemed to be your premise--that a non-unitary Spain was a bad thing, even if obtained through peaceful means.
That was not my premise at all, you misunderstood me. I only pointed out that a political scheme which worked extremely well in a country --- case in point, the cantonal system in Switzerland --- spelled ruin and misery for another and its people, Spain, as it plunged it into both a bloody civil war and a bloody revolution. And it did so precisely because the people's character and the social, economical and religious conditions in these two countries were completely different in 1870s (and they remained so until today). There is no universally valid political system.
I have no problem with non-unitary countries which resolved peacefully to be that way. Spain in 1873 was just not one of them.
Quote
People are free to relate to each other however they wish, including shared culture, etc. What libertarians insist on is that however you analyze it, it boils down to individuals choosing to associate in that matter.
See my reply about freedom of choice. Have you ever chosen to be associated with the American and Jewish culture?
Quote
IOW, all these things are fine, but only up to the point where they become co-ercive.
Well, being born a Spaniard, or a Jew, or a Romanian is indeed extremely coercive, since (a) you were not asked to give consent and (b) you can't escape it.
Quote
It's the difference between "Would you please help us build a public library because of these good reasons 1, 2, 3, etc." versus "You are obligated to help us build a public library because we have chosen to do so".
That difference should be made clear by education. Think of it this way. A public library benefits not only its subscribers, but also those who will never read a book in their whole life, since they will be better off, including physically and propertywise secure, in a society where at least a critical mass of citizens is educated (including through books) about the value and importance of life, liberty and property, than in a society where, because a critical mass of citizens refuses to spend their money on a library that they will never use, such education is missing.
Quote
Interesting, although a first read through suggests he places too much reliance on the idea of natural law
As becomes a devout Catholic. :)
Quote
, and trusts the idea of experts deciding technical matters too easily,
Well, certainly the surgery one needs for a heart condition and the techniques and instrumentary thereof, are technical matters to be decided by experts, regardless of the opinion of the one in question, right?
Quote
and he doesn't seem to understand that separation of Church and State means you can't have a political set up which takes divine revelation as one of its foundations.
He doesn't advocate the
total separation of Church and State. Actually he rejects it plainly, see paragraph 17. What he advocate against is the
identification of Church and State. But his terminology is indeed rather confusing on this point.
Quote from: kishnevi on August 05, 2010, 08:48:11 PM
Imagine a contract in which A makes himself into B's employee for one year. A's wages will be paid to his family or put in trust for the end of the year. A gives up, as part of the contract, all power to make choices of his own and gives B absolute right to make all decisions for him. B agrees not only to pay wages but to provide room and board and clothing when needed. A reserves the right to cancel the contract on grounds of physical abuse, non performance by B, etc. or the controlling local law does so alread in the case of all employment contracts. Thus, a contract as close to slavery as possible but with a set duration.
Do you think such an arrangement is morally acceptable, and if so, how do you differentiate it from an similar contract whose duration is set as the life of A.
That's not even close to slavery, it's an imaginary contract whose clauses are self-contradictory. Can you point me to one single real instance of such a contract?
Real slavery means that A is the property of B and B can do whatever he sees fit with A, including physically abusing or plain killing him, without any contract or third party interfering. That was, and in certain parts of the world still is, a harsh reality.
Quote
As true as that may be, it still does not make "society" more than a handy word to describe a group of individuals.
If this be the case, please explain me the difference between the group of individuals in contemporary Massachussets and the group of individuals in contemporary Afghanistan.
Quote from: Florestan on August 09, 2010, 02:02:43 AM
Hey, but that's exactly what you've been doing all along: lumping legislature, executive and judiciary under the general term "government" and saying: "government does this", "government does that", "government sets up" etc. Now I'm really confused.
Let me try to illustrate why the three branches are a unit, and it's the overall scheme that should be called "government".
Legislature passes a law that makes doing x a crime.
Person y does x, and is in due course arrested by the police (that is, a part of the executive arm) who turn him over to
The judiciary, where he is tried and if found guilty sentenced, his sentence being served in a jail run by the executive arm or if on probation overseen by another agency of the executive. Or the judiciary may engage in judicial review, and declare the law in question to be unconstitutional (or whatever the European equivalent might be) and release y because, in effect, he should never have been arrested.
I suppose it is simply a matter of usage, or perhaps again the American experience, where all three arms of government find their basis in the same documents (state and Federal constitutions). But let me pose a question to you: if the purpose of government is to protect individual rights, how can any of the three branches, operating by itself, without engaging in any activity which properly belongs to one of the other two branches, give such protection?
Quote
Yes I did infer that. Actually, I believe this is the main reason why libertarianism is so uncommon in Europe: one cannot reasonably adopt as valid and practical in the contemporary world a political philosophy which rests on the peculiar social and economical conditions of a country in the late 18-th century.
To which libertarianism would answer--the philosophy itself is applicable to all individuals in all places, because it draws on the fundamental aspects of being humans, not particular incarnations.
Quote
That's all fine, but my main objection is to the very idea of paying your way through a patchwork of private properties in order to go buying fresh fruits or fish in the market. Libertarianism notwithstanding, a city is not "an aggregate of individuals" who just happen to live in the same time and place. It is not a mere network of streets and homes. In Europe at least, it has public places such as large squares and parks, oftenly featuring public monuments such as statues, fountains, churches etc, where people can meet, walk, talk, have a drink, read a book or a newspaper or whatever else constitute a communal civilized life; these public spaces and the corresponding monuments are oftentimes centuries old and have been planned and build by, horribile dictu, the government of the time. Who's going to own them? Am I going to have to pay a tolll not only for walking around, say, Piazza della Signoria in Florence, but also for glancing at the statues therein? And how is the communal life to survive if each and every walk to one's favourite pub downtown results in a cumulated toll of much more than just the two beers one planned to have?
I suppose what we have on this point is a fundamental difference. You view the main unit of humanity as a group of some sort--family, town, country--and individuals only as parts of that collective. Libertarians insist that humanity is composed of individuals, and the relations of family, etc. are merely accidents in the Aristotelian sense, and not substantial in any way. When a group acts, it is simply the individuals composing that group acting in a concerted fashion, and acting in a concerted fashion is not a justification for no longer seeing them as individuals.
As to your concrete examples--you taxes pay (in part) for the upkeep of those streets; why should it go to a political unit (the municipality) instead of to specific individuals.
Most worked out schemes usually think in terms of streets and public places being owned by cooperative or condo-style associations to which people would pay periodic dues or fees. And if the owners of a street set a price that people set too high, they would find that either people would start using other streets that charged less, or raise their own prices. Same as how the free market works with, f.e., bananas.
Quote
Of course I do. But think of it this way. No individual was ever asked, let alone gave consent, whether he agrees to (a) being born in a specific ethnicity, (b) being born in a soecific time and place, (c) being born in a specific family, (d) being raised in a specific language and (e) being educated (if at all) in a specific language, by a specific person teaching one or more specific branches of knowledge. Thus, long before an individual reaches the age of consent, he is subject to (1) a multitude of influences from factors which are both inescapable and completely outside his control, and (2) a multitude of interferences from a variety of individuals --- all these factors and individuals concurring to instill in him certain values and shape in his mind a certain worldview. In whatever he will do in his adult age he will always be influenced one or way or another by them and in this respect it can be argued that an individual's choices are never completely free from external influences and interferences. There is no such things as an absolute freedom, neither of choice nor of thought nor of action: freedom always operate within a certain context, i.e. within certain limits. (Mind you, I said nothing about innate inclinations, which no doubt play their part as well in the overall character of an individual)
To illustrate my point, let's take our personal cases: you were not born a libertarian more than I was born a christian-democrat. We did not invent these philosophies --- we discovered them, and chose to adhere to them, in specific times and places, after receiving a specific education and going through specific life experiences, which include social circumstances and a host of individuals, alive and dead. Perhaps had you been born a Romanian in 1972 and I an American in..., our thinking would have been inverted; and certainly had we both been born in Somalia we would have been none of the above.
You are taking it too deep here. No libertarian denies the limiting effects of circumstances. The fact that you and I can not without special mechanical equipment or a sudden indwelling of the Holy Spirit walk on water does not mean we are not free. We merely can not walk on water.
When we speak of co-ercion, we mean the actions of other human beings.
To illustrate:
Suppose you want to purchase the complete recorded musical performances of some musician or other. You might not be able to do so because not all the recordings are for sale in some form--the individuals who presently own them have no desire to sell or copy them for the use of others. You might not be able to to do so because, while all the recordings are available for sale, you do not have enough money to buy them all.
Those constraints on your freedom to act are not co-ercion; they are simply circumstances.
But suppose the recordings are all for sale, and you have the necessary amount of money needed to purchase them, but you still can not buy them because some other person interferes in the matter, and without any legal right [which leaves out such cases as a wife who tells a husband that if he buys any more of those d==mned records she's divorcing him] forces you to not make those purchases. Perhaps the local legislature makes ownership of the recordings criminal, or a local gang of music lovers breaks in to the record shops and steals them---that's all coercion, and that's the sort of thing that libertarianism concerns itself with.
Quote
See my reply about freedom of choice. Have you ever chosen to be associated with the American and Jewish culture?
Well, being born a Spaniard, or a Jew, or a Romanian is indeed extremely coercive, since (a) you were not asked to give consent and (b) you can't escape it.
As above, that's not coercion in the libertarian sense. Coercion is not what circumstance force you to do or keep you from doing; Coercion is humans acting in a way that forces you to act in a manner different from what you would have otherwise done.
Although, as a highly personal matter, it can be said that I have, at certain points in my life, deliberately chosen to remain an citizen of the country in which I was born and a believer in the religion in which I was raised. I suppose looking over your own life, you could say the same for yourself--especially with regard to religion.
Quote
That difference should be made clear by education. Think of it this way. A public library benefits not only its subscribers, but also those who will never read a book in their whole life, since they will be better off, including physically and propertywise secure, in a society where at least a critical mass of citizens is educated (including through books) about the value and importance of life, liberty and property, than in a society where, because a critical mass of citizens refuses to spend their money on a library that they will never use, such education is missing.
And suppose the citizens believe that the difference is not substantial enough to justify the cost of the library? More generally, the line "because it's good for you" is valid when said from parent to underage child, but not acceptable for a government to its citizens. It's up to the citizens to decide.
Quote
Well, certainly the surgery one needs for a heart condition and the techniques and instrumentary thereof, are technical matters to be decided by experts, regardless of the opinion of the one in question, right?
But there are matters in which experts are not needed, only common sense and practical wisdom such as everyone (hopefully) has, and he seems to want experts in those areas as well.
Quote from: Florestan on August 09, 2010, 02:14:51 AM
That's not even close to slavery, it's an imaginary contract whose clauses are self-contradictory. Can you point me to one single real instance of such a contract?
A person enlisting in the military might come close. But we were speaking of a hypothetical situation in which an individual sells himself into slavery, and you were wondering how that would fit into the libertarian scheme of freely contracting individuals.
I was giving you the standard libertarian answers. My personal preference is that such a sale into slavery would be null and void from the beginning.
Quote
If this be the case, please explain me the difference between the group of individuals in contemporary Massachusetts and the group of individuals in contemporary Afghanistan.
One group lives in Massachusetts and the other lives in Afghanistan, but they remain each one of them human beings, and the commonality is far more important than the difference in circumstances.
Quote from: kishnevi on August 09, 2010, 06:48:32 PM
Let me try to illustrate why the three branches are a unit, and it's the overall scheme that should be called "government".
Legislature passes a law that makes doing x a crime.
Person y does x, and is in due course arrested by the police (that is, a part of the executive arm) who turn him over to
The judiciary, where he is tried and if found guilty sentenced, his sentence being served in a jail run by the executive arm or if on probation overseen by another agency of the executive. Or the judiciary may engage in judicial review, and declare the law in question to be unconstitutional (or whatever the European equivalent might be) and release y because, in effect, he should never have been arrested.
Valid point and I don't deny the fundamental unity of the three branches. But there are situations, not infrequently, when the unity crumbles and especially the executive and the legislature are in conflict.
I personally reserve the term "government" for the executive. If need be that the three branches are designated by a single term, I'd rather call them "the State".
Quote
But let me pose a question to you: if the purpose of government is to protect individual rights, how can any of the three branches, operating by itself, without engaging in any activity which properly belongs to one of the other two branches, give such protection?
Well, of course there must be cooperation and coordination between the three, otherwise the State machinery would come to a halt. However, at least since Montesquieu, the separation of powers has become a cornerstone of the rule of law and I hope that in US the executive doesn't trial anyone, the legislature doesn't arrest anyone and the judiciary doesn't make the laws by itself.
Quote
To which libertarianism would answer--the philosophy itself is applicable to all individuals in all places, because it draws on the fundamental aspects of being humans, not particular incarnations.
If this is so, then how come that applying libertarian principles in Switzerland yielded completely different results than the same principles applied in Spain? How come that most Latin American states have constitutions very similar to that of the US and yet they doesn't look anything like the US?
Quote
You view the main unit of humanity as a group of some sort--family, town, country--and individuals only as parts of that collective.
Not quite. Obviously the basic unit of humanity is the human person. But no human person, except extreme and oftentimes pathological cases, lives in a complete isolation from other human persons. Man is a social being. We are all part of different communities. Now, these communities can be voluntarily chosen or changed (for instance, one's circle of friends, the club one belongs to, the Church one attends or the neighborhood one lives in) while others are completely outside any control of the human person, such as the family, the native language and the country of birth.
Now, the important question of individual rights vs community's interests arise. It is here where we do part and I couldn't state my position better than in Kuehnelt-Leddihn's words:
"
Freedom is not an end in itself but a condition to live and to act in. "As much freedom as possible, as much coercion as necessary." The common good marks the limits of freedom."
"At the same time one has to realize that the Common Good (which always encompasses personal freedom) cannot be rigidly outlined. A complete consent will always be rare and a certain arbitrariness will always mark its definition."
Quote
Libertarians insist that humanity is composed of individuals, and the relations of family, etc. are merely accidents in the Aristotelian sense, and not substantial in any way.
Here the disagreement is complete indeed.
Quote
When a group acts, it is simply the individuals composing that group acting in a concerted fashion, and acting in a concerted fashion is not a justification for no longer seeing them as individuals.
I say it all depends on the group and the circumstances of the action. A family of father, mother and two kids of 5 and 7 is certainly a group composed of 4 individuals. Yet only 2 of them are capable of acting freely (within limits) and rationally (within limits). The other 2, while part of the common action of, say, going to Sicily for vacation, play no part in its design and execution. Their individuality, besides being not yet fully formed, is completely carried away by the group's action.
Quote
As to your concrete examples--you taxes pay (in part) for the upkeep of those streets; why should it go to a political unit (the municipality) instead of to specific individuals.
Because maintaining a public space creates the social solidarity and the civic bonds which are prerequisite for a peaceful, civilized and fruitful coexistence, while turning that space into a mere patchwork of private properties destroys them.
Quote
Most worked out schemes usually think in terms of streets and public places being owned by cooperative or condo-style associations to which people would pay periodic dues or fees.
Do you know any city or town in the world which is managed this way?
Quote
And if the owners of a street set a price that people set too high, they would find that either people would start using other streets that charged less, or raise their own prices. Same as how the free market works with, f.e., bananas.
Here we are again in complete disagreement. People and their spiritual needs are not commodities. I refer you again to the words of Roepke which sums up exactly my thinking:
Society as a whole cannot be ruled by the laws of supply and demand, and the state is more than a sort of business company, as has been the conviction of the best conservative opinion since the time of Burke. Individuals who compete on the mlarket and there pursue their own advantage stand all the more in need of the social and moral bonds of community, without which competition degenerates most grievously.
As we have said before, the market economy is not everything. It must find its place in a higher order of things which is not ruled by supply and demand, free prices, and competition. It must be firmly contained within an all-embracing order of society in which the imperfections and harshness of economic freedom are corrected by law and in which man is not denied conditions of life appropriate to his nature.Quote
But suppose the recordings are all for sale, and you have the necessary amount of money needed to purchase them, but you still can not buy them because some other person interferes in the matter, and without any legal right [which leaves out such cases as a wife who tells a husband that if he buys any more of those d==mned records she's divorcing him] forces you to not make those purchases. Perhaps the local legislature makes ownership of the recordings criminal, or a local gang of music lovers breaks in to the record shops and steals them---that's all coercion, and that's the sort of thing that libertarianism concerns itself with.As above, that's not coercion in the libertarian sense. Coercion is not what circumstance force you to do or keep you from doing; Coercion is humans acting in a way that forces you to act in a manner different from what you would have otherwise done.
I find it rather amusing (and beg your forbearance in this respect) that the examples you choose to illustrate your point are completely imaginary and bear only a very remote, if at all, resemblance to the real world. It only enforces my viewing libertarianism as a utopia.
Quote
Although, as a highly personal matter, it can be said that I have, at certain points in my life, deliberately chosen to remain an citizen of the country in which I was born and a believer in the religion in which I was raised. I suppose looking over your own life, you could say the same for yourself--especially with regard to religion.
Yes of course. But had you (or I for that matter) been born in another country and raised in another religion, quite possibly our choices would have been different; quite possibly we would have never heard about the countries we were actually born in and the religions we were raised in, let alone choose them.
Quote
And suppose the citizens believe that the difference is not substantial enough to justify the cost of the library?
Then in Libertaria, where there are no taxes and no services supplied by the government, there will be no public library as well.
In the real world, OTOH, I am not aware of any citizens' protest against a public library being built in their town or city by the government with money from their taxes. Are you?
Quote
More generally, the line "because it's good for you" is valid when said from parent to underage child, but not acceptable for a government to its citizens. It's up to the citizens to decide.
Are you implying that government, in whatever incarnation it may be, has no right to send doctors, nurses and other qualified personnel to contain an epidemy that broke out in a region? The government has no right to send firefighters in a neighborhood to fight a fire that broke out on a private property? The government has no right to undertake public works such as sewage pipelines, street lighting, power networks or street repair? Are you implying that in all these cases a popular vote is required?
Quote
But there are matters in which experts are not needed, only common sense and practical wisdom such as everyone (hopefully) has, and he seems to want experts in those areas as well.
Doesn't look like that to me. He explicitly states that "there must be areas free from government intervention, personal "kingdoms" designed and protected for the development and fulfillment of the personality; the State must have boundaries which it will not be permitted to transgress".
But admittedly these points are just a sketch. You'll find his more elaborate thoughts on this matter (and all others) in his books.
Quote from: kishnevi on August 09, 2010, 06:55:57 PM
A person enlisting in the military might come close.
Fair enough.
Quote
I was giving you the standard libertarian answers. My personal preference is that such a sale into slavery would be null and void from the beginning.
Agreed, but this means that even property and association rights have their limits.
Quote
One group lives in Massachusetts and the other lives in Afghanistan, but they remain each one of them human beings, and the commonality is far more important than the difference in circumstances.
So it makes no difference if someone lives in Kabul or in Boston, right?