US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1934

On May 08 2015 09:37 Millitron wrote:

Sex is not essential. Breathing is.

I'm not some social conservative against birth control because it's the devil or something stupid like that. I'm not even against birth control. I'm against the constant attacks on personal responsibility. I really don't like the idea of handing out free anything. Because nothing is really free.

On May 08 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:

Larger-than-family sized political organizations evolved out of fear, or greed. Either "Lets group up and rob all these dumb farmers." or "Lets group up and fight off these bandits." Neither of these are real problems anymore.

On May 08 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:
Also, the "if you don't like it here and are the minority, leave"-attitude is the exact one you're defending. You're arguing in favor of NYC ruling with an iron fist right now; you see that right?

I'm ok with taxation if it's to pay for really basic stuff that directly benefits everyone, and doesn't have a privately-run alternative. So police, fire dept, roads, things like that. Anything else, nope.

On May 08 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:

Abstinence is even better.

On May 08 2015 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote:


I live in Western Washington. Admittedly the cops here are not nearly as bad as elsewhere in the country. Some places are worse than others, but I'm more inclined to accept the bad apple argument around here generally. Considering W. Washington is probably as diverse and integrated as it gets in the US it's not usually a systemic issue. Here the issues are more about the 'thin blue line' or whatever with them covering for each other when they do in fact screw up, or just a few assholes who have clear bias.

That being said, there was this incident Pasco police said that+ Show Spoiler +in E. Washington with a (Hispanic) guy running (possibly high on meth) from police after throwing rocks getting shot at over a dozen times (hit about 6-7) that basically fits the national narrative. E. Washington is white as a mofo. It's dramatically different culturally than W. Washington. But since it's ~85%+ white and Hispanics are the main minority most of E. Washington's race related issues are between them.

I posted about it when it happened but it didn't make many waves. There have been protests and such but it's mostly Hispanic people (and they haven't set anything on fire) so it's largely been ignored by both sides.



Well I think the issue of the people clamoring the loudest for their independence are dependent on either the Feds or the part of their state they don't like is a bit of a hurdle.

For instance, E. Washington hates the laws and such that come out of Olympia but they sure like driving on the roads taxpayers in the West pay for. Same goes for several southern states. That's the whole reason alcohol age is 21 in the South. Not as if high school kids can't buy booze anyway though.

On May 08 2015 09:37 Millitron wrote:

Sex is not essential. Breathing is.

I'm not some social conservative against birth control because it's the devil or something stupid like that. I'm not even against birth control. I'm against the constant attacks on personal responsibility. I really don't like the idea of handing out free anything. Because nothing is really free.

On May 08 2015 07:25 KwarK wrote:

You're the one who treated secession as a dirty word. The British just gave the Scots the right to secede ffs.

On May 08 2015 09:43 Wegandi wrote:


Well, it's borderline illegal for private roads, so of course people will be reduced to using Government roads, and don't give me that bularky about the Government being the only entity that can supply transportation - it's such a farce (muh roads!!!). In any event, I do agree that there is a huge cognitive dissonance amongst a lot of people and that goes for the folks who want their cake and everything else under the sun (as you described the ones who want to mooch, but don't want any responsibility for themselves). That's an issue for another time though. There are a lot of independence movements in the country and you may be more familiar with the Jefferson State movement of Northern Cali and Southern Oregon since it is in your neck of the woods. Why don't these folk just let them go. They could have their preferred political institutions without all the fuss and that goes vice versa. I mean, it's just arbitrary non-sense to have so disparate peoples thrown together and cause all this conflicting and fighting. You see the same shit in the Middle East with the Kurds and Bedouins and the list goes on and on. For all this enlightenment talk, we're not remotely there. Let people of different values and cultures govern themselves - the world would be so much better off.

On May 08 2015 09:41 puerk wrote:

So big capital decides where you can live and where you can not, as you can only provide a living for yourself when you get a job? We then all live clustered around harbors, mines and factories like people in the 3rd world. Grouping up is a general advantage, not only against violent intruders, but also in negotiation situations like infrastructure development and competition for employment related investment. Just think for a moment about how it works out if every little town becomes independend, the currently poor ones will fail even worse, the richest wont care, and all the rest will either join the rich through luck and competition, or fall down to the poorer and poorer.



How about disability benefits, unemployment benefits, general financial support for people in need?


Bending the rules of physical foundations of biology to make diseases impossible and pregnancies only possible through rational deliberation would be even better, but equaly as realistic.

On May 08 2015 09:45 IgnE wrote:


Sounds like you are against freedom.

On May 08 2015 09:55 oneofthem wrote:
dear lord

On May 08 2015 09:51 puerk wrote:


But who actually decides if people in a locality constitute a proper culture for selfgovernance? a plurality, a majority, an overwhelming majority? You always act if your concepts should be self evident for everyone, as if you have found an objective truth, when you are so far away from one.....

Likely presidential candidate and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) told a group of New York financiers on Tuesday that when it comes to Middle East policy, he turns to his older brother and former President George W. Bush, according to the Washington Post.

“If you want to know who I listen to for advice, it’s him,” Jeb Bush said, the Post reported, citing four anonymous attendees of the meeting.

The younger Bush was answering a question about who he "consults as he thinks through his positions" on U.S.-Israel policy, the paper reported.

The event was a closed-door affair, reportedly organized by hedge fund manager and Republican Party mega-donor Paul Singer. The paper noted that it was not a fundraiser.

A Bush spokesperson addressed the comment to the Post.

“Governor Bush has said before that his brother is the greatest ally to Israel in presidential history, he admires his stalwart support for our ally, and that is in line with his commitment to standing with Israel in the face of great threats to their security and our own,” the spokesperson said on Thursday.

On May 08 2015 09:56 Millitron wrote:

Those IUD's don't just magically appear. They cost money. Just because the end-user isn't the one that pays doesn't mean they're free.


Another contentless post from oneofthem. Bravo.

On May 08 2015 10:31 GreenHorizons wrote:


Yet they are immensely cheaper than dealing with the unwanted pregnancies. We shouldn't need police either, people should just not break the law ("it's free" and "it's not essential").. But people do, so you have to have a system to deal with that.

We could get rid of traditional police and replace them with Judge Dredd types or no one, but that's a dumb solution, like telling low-income youths to just not do the most pleasurable thing they can do that also happens to be free (when you get lucky not using birth control) is a stupid solution for teen pregnancies.

They have something that works, now they want to stop it without replacing it with anything functional. That's just ideologically blind stupidity.

Not to mention IUD's are also something young women in relationships with men who are against birth control get so that they don't have to keep having children they don't want without having to imprison their babies father.

On May 08 2015 09:56 Millitron wrote:

Those IUD's don't just magically appear. They cost money. Just because the end-user isn't the one that pays doesn't mean they're free.

On May 08 2015 09:54 Wegandi wrote:


That's actually not true puerk. City-States in order to survive have to adopt very liberal economic doctrines (e.g. free-trade, low-tax rates, low regulatory environments (do not read this as pollute pollute pollute, but things like licensing, fees, etc.), etc.), which in turn makes these entities more well-to-do. Why do you think Italian city-states initiated the renaissance and were the wealthiest entities in Europe? Why do you think German culture produced more institutions of worth (museums, music, architecture, etc.) during their city-state time than when they became unified/nationalized? Look at places like Singapore, Hong Kong, all these so-called tax-havens of Europe like Liechtenstein that have higher per capita-income than places like France, Germany, etc.

You're simply either delusional, or ignorant of history to say that a devolution to city-statism would make people poorer. What makes people poor are large centralized Nation-States, that concentrate wealth in the political classes from an enormous geographical territory and population. Never mind the stifling of competition, and yes, more 'nations' would mean more competition which means better economic outcomes.

On May 08 2015 Wegandi wrote:
Self-governance is the ideal. Anyways, for practical purposes (and I really dislike this in principle) a plurality would probably have to suffice for it to not to be a clusterfuck, but I suppose you wouldn't need that if folk who wanted to form their own governments could simply 'opt-out' of their current institutional chains without the need for anyone who doesn't want to be a part to be so, but that runs into problems of right of ways and isolating folk which wouldn't be a problem if there were contractual agreements like what ATM's and the like use (reciprocity of infrastructure), though this wouldn't really be a problem if all infrastructure was private so there would be no conflict of use. I'm under no delusion though that, that would be a reality any time soon, so hence the plurality bit. Also, who said I had some objective truth? You're the one who wants disparate peoples to be subjugated under a central authority - the burden is up to you to argue this arrangement is both just and practical, not me.

On May 08 2015 10:33 Millitron wrote:

Why should I have to pay for it though? They want the IUD, they should be the ones paying.

On May 08 2015 10:33 Millitron wrote:

Jeb just lost any chance at the presidency. Maybe this is an OK stance for the republican primary, but if people remember it once the election rolls around, he's doomed.


Why should I have to pay for it though? They want the IUD, they should be the ones paying.

On May 08 2015 10:58 IgnE wrote:


Life isn't free.

On May 08 2015 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
Why should I have to pay for police, the criminals should have to pay for it....

On May 08 2015 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
So lets say no one wants to pay for it because 'they' should (a reasonable position on it's face). Well they get pregnant anyway, they wan't to use plan B but don't want/can't to pay $50+ for it, so they say fuck it. Well now they need healthcare for the pregnancy. So maybe you say "they should pay for that too", well yeah they should but you can't get blood from a stone so they don't. You could deny them and their unborn child healthcare because they should be paying for it themselves?

Well let's say they make through to giving birth are we going to deny them hospital entry and treatment for birth? Let's say they gave birth at home. Now you have an unintentional child, likely unwanted. Do you want to pay for anything for that innocent child or is the idea to just let them fend for themselves?

Or instead you could just make birth control easily accessible and prevent the pregnancy in the first place saving far more money in the long run.

Unwanted children are a fact of life, you can pay up front to prevent them from being created, you can pay to raise them after they are born, or you can just leave them to themselves and turn a blind eye. You seem to prefer to leave unwanted children to struggle on their own instead of providing access to birth control to save money. Which seems devoid from the real world consequences.

On May 08 2015 10:59 puerk wrote:


Your reading comprehension is atrocious.
I specifically stated that some towns will be better of. The notion that i was actually arguing is that the wealth gap will grow even further. By picking the winners and telling me: look how much fun the richest in a time of widespread misery had! We should totally go back to that system because i consider myself a prospective winner.
You consistently advocate policies for the rich to get richer and for the poor to get poorer and more disenfranchised but pretend to be advocating something that will make it better for everyone.
Just drop the pretending and be honest with us.....



You are the one wanting to overthrow the system your parents born you into therefore accepting the social contract on your behalf. I recognize your wish for greatness, but i value equity of outcome and dignity over principalistic "might makes right".
That whole paragraph you wrote ignores everything we know about actual people in actual situations of need. People can not negotiate fair contracts for things they need in a world where wealth already exists and is distributed in a most uneven fashion.
Nobody ever starts with a clean state in an empty world, and our methods of governance and social structuring have to take that into account. Either we go for a system of pure competition where you can adore your Singapores while ignoring all the failures and misery going on around it, or we can try to reduce inequalities by empowering institutions to transfer wealth. Neither approach is dishonest or categorically wrong, i prefer the latter because i do not care as much about the value of winning over others, but more about the value of winning as a society as a whole.

On May 08 2015 11:17 Millitron wrote:

Abstinence is.


I pay for police so they protect me. I get nothing from paying for someone else's IUD.


I find it very hard to believe that there are many people who can't save up a mere $50. It doesn't even have to be coming up with $50 at the drop of a hat, it can be over quite awhile. Just do it ahead of time. Lots of people have "rainy day funds", well they can have an "unwanted pregnancy fund".