In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On September 18 2014 18:17 KwarK wrote: I doubt anyone is more disappointed in Obama than the left.
I might agree for the simple reason that they have to account for having voted for him, twice. The ones with terrific hindsight have to reflect on how much of this could've been predicted before his first election and from his first term of office.
Voting for a Democrat isn't a mistake when you consider the Republican party, it's just a terrible let down when you hope for a genuinely left wing government and what you get is erosion of due process, foreign adventurism and exceptionalism, more crony capitalism and no Federal level progress on civil rights.
Obama has basically been a continuation of Bush. The only reason the right have to be disappointed by him are those who had a twisted desire to see him turn out to be the Anti-Christ heralding in the end times. Or those on the Libertarian fringe I guess.
Edit: When I think left wing I think of the British Left in recent years who have been strongly against foreign adventurism in violation of international law (basically no Iraq invasion), strongly in favour of individual liberties and equality (against discrimination, for gay marriage etc), for individual rights (against sweeping anti-Terror laws that allow people to be held without charge etc), for state funded social mobility mechanisms to be strengthened (increasing funding to housing, healthcare and education programs that help people who, through no fault of their own, lack opportunity without trying to make everyone equal), pro international co-operation (pro EU in our case), for drug decriminalisation varying from drug to drug etc etc.
When I think of the Left I think of a group that protects the rights of the individual (the right to property exempted from taxation being notably excluded here) and proactively attempts to give opportunities to better yourself within a capitalist society to those who, through no fault of their own, are denied it. Obviously every party makes political compromises in order to get elected but by that definition nothing Obama has done could be classified as on the Left.
I applaud the clarity and articulation of your vision; it helps me to understand your mindset. We differ on what does and does not constitute a right, indeed even delineating the difference between rights and desireable outcomes, and duties both explicit and implicit. If I could ever see and talk to more leftists of your stripe, with very little active intellectual deceit, I think we could have a vibrant conversation of the rights of the individual, how best to protect them, and constitute threats to those rights.
I was attempting to define the degree to which I believe in property rights regarding uneven taxation and concluded that while private property exists this is a perversion of the idea of Natural Law giving a man the sweat of his brow. That not all property is rightfully owned by the person the system deems the owner.
I'm a capitalist because I believe that it's the best way we've found to create efficient markets with motivated participants. However I also believe it's a rigged game, not hugely different from the feudalism that proceeded it in that regard, the landowner gets his share simply by virtue of owning the soil, something with no value before the serfs labour in it. The question then becomes how to make it most palatable, both for moral reasons and to stave off the peasant revolt that the shortsighted landlords inevitably drive their serfs to. I don't wish to end it because I have nothing better to replace it with, but nor do I think that the landlord's claim to his share is especially more virtuous than that of five centuries previously. The last few centuries of democracy and humanism have amounted to one big game of how little can you give away to keep the game being played, how much can you rig it before someone flips the board over.
It's in the interests of everyone to keep the game being played, but some have more at stake than others, and I have no huge qualms by asking that those who rig it and who benefit from it being rigged chip in to keep it being played.
Those who defend capitalism and inequality have always struck me as short sighted, as if their ideas of property rights and their Atlas Shrugged quotes will save them against a mob. What keeps the mob at bay is getting them to buy into the system, historically with belief in the infinite riches of heaven just around the corner, now with votes and belief in the infinite material riches just around the corner.
i think the far better preserver of the capitalist system is the principle o private property rights for all. The mansion owner, the single-bedroom owner, the landlord that bought, and the renter that pays monthly. Not some implicit mob justice that stands ready to toss the established order out UNLESS they collectively perceive that the system rewards them.
I struggle to find what level of inequality is too egregious to tolerate in return for law and order. Where even is the case for Liberty if lifestyle and profession choices don't lead to different income outcomes. I saw quick retreats to the bastion of CEO pay (that Jonny dived into) the second someone like myself suggests the bottom 20% or 50% will always harbor envy an enterprising politician can harness to drive the political machinery towards confiscatory taxation. Like the recently deceased Joan Rivers believed, she worked hard for her money and believed it shouldn't be unduly taxed. Inequality's demands are always more and more taxation, simply for others making less, and not some basic safety net to provide for the truly destitute. It is a political battering ram to diminish the rich, driven by envy of their success (and dare I say hard work) and not by the living standards of the poor.
If it was the case that every rich person had worked hard for his money then we could start having a discussion about whether that's a fair system or not. In reality not many people are self made millionaires . Statistically your best shot for doing well in life is having parents that did. So if you want to oppose redistribution keep in mind that, as KwarK already said, you're defending something that is pretty much a feudal system and not the "Every man makes his own future" fantasy.
Also the fucking 'envy' argument. Do you honestly not know one single truly poor person? I can assure you most of them probably don't sit around all day feeling envious.
BOSTON, Sept 19 (Reuters) - The failed Scottish vote to pull out from the United Kingdom stirred secessionist hopes for some in the United States, where almost a quarter of people are open to their states leaving the union, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll found.
Some 23.9 percent of Americans polled from Aug. 23 through Sept. 16 said they strongly supported or tended to support the idea of their state breaking away, while 53.3 percent of the 8,952 respondents strongly opposed or tended to oppose the notion.
The urge to sever ties with Washington cuts across party lines and regions, though Republicans and residents of rural Western states are generally warmer to the idea than Democrats and Northeasterners, according to the poll.
Anger with President Barack Obama's handling of issues ranging from healthcare reform to the rise of Islamic State militants drives some of the feeling, with Republican respondents citing dissatisfaction with his administration as coloring their thinking.
But others said long-running Washington gridlock had prompted them to wonder if their states would be better off striking out on their own, a move no U.S. state has tried in the 150 years since the bloody Civil War that led to the end of slavery in the South.
BOSTON, Sept 19 (Reuters) - The failed Scottish vote to pull out from the United Kingdom stirred secessionist hopes for some in the United States, where almost a quarter of people are open to their states leaving the union, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll found.
Some 23.9 percent of Americans polled from Aug. 23 through Sept. 16 said they strongly supported or tended to support the idea of their state breaking away, while 53.3 percent of the 8,952 respondents strongly opposed or tended to oppose the notion.
The urge to sever ties with Washington cuts across party lines and regions, though Republicans and residents of rural Western states are generally warmer to the idea than Democrats and Northeasterners, according to the poll.
Anger with President Barack Obama's handling of issues ranging from healthcare reform to the rise of Islamic State militants drives some of the feeling, with Republican respondents citing dissatisfaction with his administration as coloring their thinking.
But others said long-running Washington gridlock had prompted them to wonder if their states would be better off striking out on their own, a move no U.S. state has tried in the 150 years since the bloody Civil War that led to the end of slavery in the South.
Is this actually something that could realistically happen though? I guess if you'd ask people here "Are you happy with the federal government in Berlin and could you imagine your state being independent" it would produce similar results, but an actual breakup seems completely unrealistic.
There are two states that can even consider the notion, and even they are flat out too reliant on far too many aspects of our federal system. That poll just indicates that our social studies and government education is horrible.
On September 20 2014 02:20 Nyxisto wrote: Is this actually something that could realistically happen though? I guess if you'd ask people here "Are you happy with the federal government in Berlin and could you imagine your state being independent" it would produce similar results, but an actual breakup seems completely unrealistic.
Oh it's totally unrealistic for sure (perhaps it's distance from reality is part of it's appeal on the right?).
I did find it interesting how many potential presidential candidates voted against arming ISIS Syrian rebels though.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)
I really can't wait for the debates... I have a feeling the evolution questions and war questions are going to spark some interesting intra-party debates.
SALINA, Kan. — Throughout most of Kansas’ history, some things have been true: The wheat is tall. The cattle are strong. And the wind has been mostly annoying. “Kansas is herself again,” a newspaperman from this central town snarked on a blustery day in April 1880. “A newcomer asked one of our fellow townsmen if it always blew this way in Kansas.” (The answer, in short, was yes.)
Today the wind still rolls off the Rocky Mountains and barrels across the Great Plains, kicking up dust, ruffling fields and ruining cellphone conversations. But increasingly, Kansans are finding that wind from the west may be yet another golden resource of the state — able to generate huge amounts of electricity and make them money in the process. A growing awareness of that windfall is cutting across partisan lines, winning adherents to a green energy source in a state otherwise dominated by deep red oil and cattle conservatives.
“The wind goes by. You just might as well use it,” said Jim Warta, a 70-year-old rancher whose family has been farming in Kansas’ central Ellsworth County for five generations. In 2008 he and his wife, Laura, opened part of their 1,500 acres to Massachusetts-based Enel Green Power, which built 11 wind turbines there — some of the roughly 150 turbines producing 250 megawatts of electricity across the Smoky Hills region, where they live.
The Wartas still make most of their money from wheat, soybeans and their herd of muscular black-and-brown beef cattle. But the extra money from the electricity generated on his land (about 3 percent of the cost per megawatt), is a welcome addition each month. The turbines also drive up the value of the land, Warta says — land he can continue to use for grazing and crops, unlike property given over to oil drilling. “I’ve been to a couple sales since then and tried to buy property that had the turbines on them. It’s unbelievable what it brings.”
The demand reflects a growing realization of Kansas’ potential as a leader in renewable energy. At full capacity it would generate more wind energy than any other state except Texas, according to the U.S. Energy Department’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory, which says Kansas wind could produce 3.1 million gigawatt hours annually. That’s equivalent to three-quarters of the total electricity generated by all energy sources in the United States last year. Despite growing investment that has nearly tripled Kansas wind-energy production since 2010, the state’s producers generated only 9,430 gigawatt hours last year — 0.3 percent of the potential.
Yeah, it's about time someone did something about the way the wind can move objects overhead casting moving shadows. First clouds, now turbines, how long until we've had enough? The sun is complicit too!
Those who defend capitalism and inequality have always struck me as short sighted, as if their ideas of property rights and their Atlas Shrugged quotes will save them against a mob. What keeps the mob at bay is getting them to buy into the system, historically with belief in the infinite riches of heaven just around the corner, now with votes and belief in the infinite material riches just around the corner.
Put your money where your mouth is. Go to the owner of your employer and demand RAISE OR RIOT.
This logic of "equality or mob anarchy" seems incredibly more short-sighted than what you're criticizing. What keeps "the mob" at bay is the win-win nature of modern political economy - don't cause instability and in return you get ever better goods at lower cost. The benefits of technology have been borne almost entirely by the poor. The rich could always afford to personally consume the finest things in life. The internet and mp3s have brought information, art, and music to the common person at absurdly low cost (all the resources of an elite education can easily be found for free). Industrial meat and bread allow people to eat so well that obesity is now our primary problem, not hunger.
Toppling "the rich" and destroying the system doesn't improve things for very long and certainly doesn't raise qualify of life in society, so it's dumb to even go there as a hypothetical. This has been proven both logically and empirically.
Did the quality of life improve in 1905 Russia? Or in 1917? The revolution doesn't help, capitalism is what works, but it happens anyway. Throughout my post I argued that the despite it being a rigged game it's better than the alternative, I just also argued that there is only so much you can cheat, and so obvious you can be about doing it, before the losers get so mad they flip the board anyway.
I don't want the system destroyed, my point about the mob was that those who want to enact policies that act like the game isn't rigged at all (flat taxes, no inheritance taxes etc) are short sighted because that will only end one way.
In response to your edit, you're right, it does come down to "you owe me for not killing you". Or to put it slightly less bluntly, "I play this rigged game with you because it's the only game we've got that puts food on both our tables, but don't think I haven't noticed that you're cheating, nor that I'm not aware that you need me to keep playing as much as I need you to keep playing."
I'd say the quality of life definitly improved in 1917, until half of the occidental world (17 countries) decided to attack Russia (themselves or via proxy) because it was trying something new, forcing it into a war like state for half a century. If you put aside everything that happened, sure capitalism is "what works". Capitalism doesn't even mean much.
I sincerely doubt that. Russian peasants jumped the gun on collectivization- wresting control of (at least) Mennonite property before the government could even get involved. I think there is something to Kwark's- all sides must benefit enough for the lowest class to buy in. The Mennonites in the Ukraine lived fairly separately, but were very well off and so part of the bourgesois. Disinterest in the well-being of their neighbours did not save them from being turfed- even being specifically targetted by Machnov. It would have been to their best interest to look more to the interests of those around them so that they continue living peaceably with most of their wealth. Rather than none at all.-Siberia gulags for some, refugees for others.
On September 20 2014 04:34 KwarK wrote: Yeah, it's about time someone did something about the way the wind can move objects overhead casting moving shadows. First clouds, now turbines, how long until we've had enough? The sun is complicit too!
You can't tell me you wouldn't be annoyed if that was your house.
On September 20 2014 04:34 KwarK wrote: Yeah, it's about time someone did something about the way the wind can move objects overhead casting moving shadows. First clouds, now turbines, how long until we've had enough? The sun is complicit too!
This is a bit presumptuous, a cloud doesn't make a strobe-like shadow. I don't know personally, but you really can't compare a cloud's shadow to a flashing shadow in your room.
On September 20 2014 04:34 KwarK wrote: Yeah, it's about time someone did something about the way the wind can move objects overhead casting moving shadows. First clouds, now turbines, how long until we've had enough? The sun is complicit too!
You can't tell me you wouldn't be annoyed if that was your house.
I have a light outside my bedroom window that already annoys me at night. It's just bad planning, not a criticism of the technology itself.
let E denote the countably infinite set of values that denote the easiness of a problem: E ≔ { 1, 2, ... }
let p denote the monotonically decreasing function identifying the easiness of a problem with the binary property of being possible to solve: p: E -> {0, 1} where 0 denotes it is not possible, and 1 denotes it is possible.
thus: if E∈e₀ and p(e₀) = 1, then ∀E∈e such that e <= e₀: p(e) = 1. if E∈e₁ and p(e₁) = 0, then ∀E∈e such that e >= e₁: p(e) = 0.
let E∈eₐ denote the easiness of the problem: screamingpalm moving.
we know from your post that p(eₐ) = 1. we also know that ∃E∈e₁ such that p(e₁) = 0.
then ∀∃E∈e₁ such that p(e₁)=0, and ∀E∈e such that e>=e₁: eₐ<e.
Q.E.D.
all your "element of" symbols point in the wrong direction
On September 20 2014 01:03 Nyxisto wrote: If it was the case that every rich person had worked hard for his money then we could start having a discussion about whether that's a fair system or not. In reality not many people are self made millionaires . Statistically your best shot for doing well in life is having parents that did. So if you want to oppose redistribution keep in mind that, as KwarK already said, you're defending something that is pretty much a feudal system and not the "Every man makes his own future" fantasy.
Also the fucking 'envy' argument. Do you honestly not know one single truly poor person? I can assure you most of them probably don't sit around all day feeling envious.
Does it really need to be "every" rich person being self made? We can probably agree that the percentage of truly undeserving destitute people is about the same as undeserving trust fund, leisure class socialites. We do seem to disagree on how pervasive these polar situations are. People's situations are largely the culmination of all the lessons and decisions in their life that point. The mindsets of the wealthy and poor are of course imparted by values instilled during raising, Sure you can tax inheritance if you think that is the problem, the fact is that these children are "self-made" in their social class long before their parents kick the bucket. The lessons, mindset, social networks and values are passed along long before the estate writes a cheque to the beneficiary. People like Buffet, Gates and Zuckerberg are the rule, Hilton is the exception, even though Paris' wealth will be largely self made long before she is entitled to mommy and daddy's estate when they die.
Do you know any truly rich people, or are they just faceless hate magnets that stir those feelings when reading articles about their wealth? They are often people of astoundingly great character, generous and always motivated.
I do know truly poor people, I grew up with them. In fact, just I just waved goodbye to my indian on the couch after lending him thousands "to just move out", hooked him up with a 100,000+ dollar a year job. He made a choice to return to poverty and so my charity to provide a hand up to one of my childhood friends failed.
EPT
