|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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 April 26 2016 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 06:51 kwizach wrote:On April 26 2016 03:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 03:50 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
I also don't think "we can't trust young people to vote" is a good rallying cry for the Democratic party. Particularly when they intentionally exclude them (with millions of others) from participating in picking who is on the ballot in November. Is this you accusing the DNC of voter suppression or trying to argue against closed primaries? I'm saying Democrats support the largest segment of voters (Independent/No party) being excluded from getting a voice in who's on the ballot in Nov, call it what you want. False, again. Anyone can register as a Democrat to get a voice in who's going to be in on the Democratic ticket for November. Registering as a Democrat is free. Also, Independent voters/those with no party are free to create their own party if they'd like, just like everyone else. You're acting like states like New York don't have exclusionary rules that go beyond reasonable. That's fine. You are suggesting folks start their own party. That's fine. Democrats don't want to change the party. That's fine. Just don't expect us to vote for Hillary. I think it's a terrible plan for the party, but people are free to disagree. Just don't be surprised if the 70-80% of voters under 30 don't want to support that kind of party.
I'm not "acting like" anything. You made the claim that Democrats "support the largest segment of voters (Independent/No party) being excluded from getting a voice in who's on the ballot in Nov". That is a false statement.
|
On April 26 2016 17:11 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 06:51 kwizach wrote:On April 26 2016 03:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 03:50 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
I also don't think "we can't trust young people to vote" is a good rallying cry for the Democratic party. Particularly when they intentionally exclude them (with millions of others) from participating in picking who is on the ballot in November. Is this you accusing the DNC of voter suppression or trying to argue against closed primaries? I'm saying Democrats support the largest segment of voters (Independent/No party) being excluded from getting a voice in who's on the ballot in Nov, call it what you want. False, again. Anyone can register as a Democrat to get a voice in who's going to be in on the Democratic ticket for November. Registering as a Democrat is free. Also, Independent voters/those with no party are free to create their own party if they'd like, just like everyone else. You're acting like states like New York don't have exclusionary rules that go beyond reasonable. That's fine. You are suggesting folks start their own party. That's fine. Democrats don't want to change the party. That's fine. Just don't expect us to vote for Hillary. I think it's a terrible plan for the party, but people are free to disagree. Just don't be surprised if the 70-80% of voters under 30 don't want to support that kind of party. I'm not "acting like" anything. You made the claim that Democrats "support the largest segment of voters (Independent/No party) being excluded from getting a voice in who's on the ballot in Nov". That is a false statement.
In the sense that "the Constitution protects the rights of every American" is a true statement.
You might have missed it, but I was wondering if you would agree that we have to end the flood of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our elections, corrupting our political system, and drowning out the voices of too many everyday Americans? That our democracy should be about expanding the franchise, not charging an entrance fee?
|
Basic income is the logical next step in human evolution and the only measure that can "fix" capitalism. This is pretty self-evident but unfortunately many people don't see it because they are fundamentally either Marxists or Libertarians. While these two ideologies might be excellent critiques of capitalism and statism respectively, they are also severely outdated, poorly thought out hermetic dogmas that never accounted for the most important variable (real-life human psychology) in the first place, perpetually focus on the wrong issue (either the abolition or "sanctity" of private property, both of which are retarded concepts) and whose proposed solutions to the very problems they were able to identify are downright inane (hello Communism / Anarcho-Capitalism).
Let's just say that abolishing private property (i.e. killing personal responsibility & individual freedom) and abolishing the state / taxes (i.e. killing society & turning humanity into a PvP server) are both some of the dumbest ideas ever.
If you want capitalism to work long-term, though, you need to constantly redistribute resources, because the nature of the system itself results in the constant redistribution of resources towards those who already possess them (the efficiency of "passive" vs. "active" income a.k.a. capital vs. labor). Since resources are finite, "unregulated" capitalism invariably results class warfare and, finally, violent revolution.
The state on the other hand is, of course, absolutely terrible at redistributing resources due to corruption, nepotism, politics, lobbying etc, which can all be neatly summed up as the human factor (incidentally, the human factor is also what prevents any kind of Marxist or Libertarian utopia from ever functioning. Humans need freedom and personal responsibility, but they also need boundaries, checks and balances, and to generate "meaning", they especially need the supportive community of a PvE server).
Basic income, surprisingly, offers an automated way of doing all the above with minimum human intervention, does away with the gluttonous and corrupt state redistribution, and allows people to take a breather from the rat race and actually do creative, meaningful work they enjoy. Which is exactly what we need right now since we're about to automate everything else.
It should be noted that humans are not intrinsically lazy. This is absolutely a scientific fact of psychology, so asserting that they are is basically just bullshit right-wing propaganda. Doing something creative is basically the meaning of life, and in addition to genuine human relations the single thing that fills every human being with real content and satisfaction. Nobody wants to be bored, except for people with issues, and flogging those into "productivity" hasn't been working anyway. Of course, humans also don't want to be packing chicken nuggets for 9 hours a day at subsistence wages that do not allow for any kind of social mobility, but that's not because they are lazy. It just doesn't make fucking sense. Under zero-social-mobility conditions you then get things like "criminal culture" where those who are capable simply turn to crime (which, let's be honest, is merely another way of doing "business"), and the rest conduct living suicide in the form of drug dependency or wasting out on the "dole".
Also, the difference between "working" and "contributing to society" is enormous. A person hanging out with the elderly or taking care that kids can safely cross the street does more for society than a person grinding an 80 hr workweek peddling bullshit, "marketing", or engaging in speculative finance. We should really stop obsessing about "work", or at least stop using it as something that describes the generation of capital and rather use it as a notion describing the generation of "happiness".
As for the "free loading" platitude, I don't even want to get started. One glance at hard numbers, and anyone can see for themselves that the only freeloaders in post-modern industrial societies are corporations and the 1%. There's not enough food stamps on this planet to pay for a single corporate subsidy / bank bailout.
Tl, dr, the free market can't work unless people "start off" with minimal existential safety, so they can invest in themselves and perform activities that make them fulfilled, in turn turning them into happy, productive members of society.
|
On April 26 2016 17:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 17:11 kwizach wrote:On April 26 2016 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 06:51 kwizach wrote:On April 26 2016 03:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 03:50 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
I also don't think "we can't trust young people to vote" is a good rallying cry for the Democratic party. Particularly when they intentionally exclude them (with millions of others) from participating in picking who is on the ballot in November. Is this you accusing the DNC of voter suppression or trying to argue against closed primaries? I'm saying Democrats support the largest segment of voters (Independent/No party) being excluded from getting a voice in who's on the ballot in Nov, call it what you want. False, again. Anyone can register as a Democrat to get a voice in who's going to be in on the Democratic ticket for November. Registering as a Democrat is free. Also, Independent voters/those with no party are free to create their own party if they'd like, just like everyone else. You're acting like states like New York don't have exclusionary rules that go beyond reasonable. That's fine. You are suggesting folks start their own party. That's fine. Democrats don't want to change the party. That's fine. Just don't expect us to vote for Hillary. I think it's a terrible plan for the party, but people are free to disagree. Just don't be surprised if the 70-80% of voters under 30 don't want to support that kind of party. I'm not "acting like" anything. You made the claim that Democrats "support the largest segment of voters (Independent/No party) being excluded from getting a voice in who's on the ballot in Nov". That is a false statement. In the sense that "the Constitution protects the rights of every American" is a true statement. You might of missed it, but I was wondering if you would agree that we have to end the flood of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our elections, corrupting our political system, and drowning out the voices of too many everyday Americans? That our democracy should be about expanding the franchise, not charging an entrance fee?
No, in the sense that it is free for independents to register as Democrats if they want to be sure to be able to voice their support for the person they think should be on the Democratic ticket in November.
I didn't miss it. It's a ridiculous question that you're asking as a springboard for a follow-up post. I've already answered it several times in my posts in these last few pages and over the years on these boards.
|
On April 26 2016 18:06 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 17:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 17:11 kwizach wrote:On April 26 2016 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 06:51 kwizach wrote:On April 26 2016 03:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 03:50 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
I also don't think "we can't trust young people to vote" is a good rallying cry for the Democratic party. Particularly when they intentionally exclude them (with millions of others) from participating in picking who is on the ballot in November. Is this you accusing the DNC of voter suppression or trying to argue against closed primaries? I'm saying Democrats support the largest segment of voters (Independent/No party) being excluded from getting a voice in who's on the ballot in Nov, call it what you want. False, again. Anyone can register as a Democrat to get a voice in who's going to be in on the Democratic ticket for November. Registering as a Democrat is free. Also, Independent voters/those with no party are free to create their own party if they'd like, just like everyone else. You're acting like states like New York don't have exclusionary rules that go beyond reasonable. That's fine. You are suggesting folks start their own party. That's fine. Democrats don't want to change the party. That's fine. Just don't expect us to vote for Hillary. I think it's a terrible plan for the party, but people are free to disagree. Just don't be surprised if the 70-80% of voters under 30 don't want to support that kind of party. I'm not "acting like" anything. You made the claim that Democrats "support the largest segment of voters (Independent/No party) being excluded from getting a voice in who's on the ballot in Nov". That is a false statement. In the sense that "the Constitution protects the rights of every American" is a true statement. You might of missed it, but I was wondering if you would agree that we have to end the flood of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our elections, corrupting our political system, and drowning out the voices of too many everyday Americans? That our democracy should be about expanding the franchise, not charging an entrance fee? No, in the sense that it is free for independents to register as Democrats if they want to be sure to be able to voice their support for the person they think should be on the Democratic ticket in November. I didn't miss it. It's a ridiculous question that you're asking as a springboard for a follow-up post. I've already answered it several times in my posts in these last few pages and over the years on these boards.
Let's make it clear then, you don't think that by requiring people to declare they want to vote in the democratic primary months ahead of time, before the first debate, that the democratic party of New York is making it excessively difficult to participate for millions of people who don't think either party represents them at the time?
You don't think that it is excluding people who might have been reconsidering coming into the party if Bernie was at it's head or into the Republican party with Trump? That no one believed the talking heads that said the parties were both going to nominate the status quo back then, and would have joined to support either of the candidates mentioned had they thought they would even get a chance?
As for the question, I also want to make clear that you either agree or disagree or what parts you disagree with. I've payed attention to your last conversation and I don't intend to ask you to repeat yourself, I just want to be clear about what exactly you're saying.
|
On April 26 2016 18:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 18:06 kwizach wrote:On April 26 2016 17:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 17:11 kwizach wrote:On April 26 2016 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 06:51 kwizach wrote:On April 26 2016 03:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 03:50 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
I also don't think "we can't trust young people to vote" is a good rallying cry for the Democratic party. Particularly when they intentionally exclude them (with millions of others) from participating in picking who is on the ballot in November. Is this you accusing the DNC of voter suppression or trying to argue against closed primaries? I'm saying Democrats support the largest segment of voters (Independent/No party) being excluded from getting a voice in who's on the ballot in Nov, call it what you want. False, again. Anyone can register as a Democrat to get a voice in who's going to be in on the Democratic ticket for November. Registering as a Democrat is free. Also, Independent voters/those with no party are free to create their own party if they'd like, just like everyone else. You're acting like states like New York don't have exclusionary rules that go beyond reasonable. That's fine. You are suggesting folks start their own party. That's fine. Democrats don't want to change the party. That's fine. Just don't expect us to vote for Hillary. I think it's a terrible plan for the party, but people are free to disagree. Just don't be surprised if the 70-80% of voters under 30 don't want to support that kind of party. I'm not "acting like" anything. You made the claim that Democrats "support the largest segment of voters (Independent/No party) being excluded from getting a voice in who's on the ballot in Nov". That is a false statement. In the sense that "the Constitution protects the rights of every American" is a true statement. You might of missed it, but I was wondering if you would agree that we have to end the flood of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our elections, corrupting our political system, and drowning out the voices of too many everyday Americans? That our democracy should be about expanding the franchise, not charging an entrance fee? No, in the sense that it is free for independents to register as Democrats if they want to be sure to be able to voice their support for the person they think should be on the Democratic ticket in November. I didn't miss it. It's a ridiculous question that you're asking as a springboard for a follow-up post. I've already answered it several times in my posts in these last few pages and over the years on these boards. Let's make it clear then, you don't think that by requiring people to declare they want to vote in the democratic primary months ahead of time, before the first debate, that the democratic party of New York is making it excessively difficult to participate for millions of people who don't think either party represents them at the time? You don't think that it is excluding people who might have been reconsidering coming into the party if Bernie was at it's head or into the Republican party with Trump? That no one believed the talking heads that said the parties were both going to nominate the status quo back then, and would have joined to support either of the candidates mentioned had they thought they would even get a chance? As for the question, I also want to make clear that you either agree or disagree or what parts you disagree with. I've payed attention to your last conversation and I don't intend to ask you to repeat yourself, I just want to be clear about what exactly you're saying.
Someone who is thinking of voting for Bernie now would a year ago never have thought of voting Republican.
Someone who is thinking of voting for Trump now would a year ago never have thought of voting Democrat.
These people know they live in a closed primary state, they know that if they are not registered to a party that they have no say in the primary.
Complaining about this is entirely no different from not voting in the election and then complaining that X won. They chose not to participate in the process.
|
On April 26 2016 19:17 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 18:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 18:06 kwizach wrote:On April 26 2016 17:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 17:11 kwizach wrote:On April 26 2016 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 06:51 kwizach wrote:On April 26 2016 03:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 03:50 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
I also don't think "we can't trust young people to vote" is a good rallying cry for the Democratic party. Particularly when they intentionally exclude them (with millions of others) from participating in picking who is on the ballot in November. Is this you accusing the DNC of voter suppression or trying to argue against closed primaries? I'm saying Democrats support the largest segment of voters (Independent/No party) being excluded from getting a voice in who's on the ballot in Nov, call it what you want. False, again. Anyone can register as a Democrat to get a voice in who's going to be in on the Democratic ticket for November. Registering as a Democrat is free. Also, Independent voters/those with no party are free to create their own party if they'd like, just like everyone else. You're acting like states like New York don't have exclusionary rules that go beyond reasonable. That's fine. You are suggesting folks start their own party. That's fine. Democrats don't want to change the party. That's fine. Just don't expect us to vote for Hillary. I think it's a terrible plan for the party, but people are free to disagree. Just don't be surprised if the 70-80% of voters under 30 don't want to support that kind of party. I'm not "acting like" anything. You made the claim that Democrats "support the largest segment of voters (Independent/No party) being excluded from getting a voice in who's on the ballot in Nov". That is a false statement. In the sense that "the Constitution protects the rights of every American" is a true statement. You might of missed it, but I was wondering if you would agree that we have to end the flood of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our elections, corrupting our political system, and drowning out the voices of too many everyday Americans? That our democracy should be about expanding the franchise, not charging an entrance fee? No, in the sense that it is free for independents to register as Democrats if they want to be sure to be able to voice their support for the person they think should be on the Democratic ticket in November. I didn't miss it. It's a ridiculous question that you're asking as a springboard for a follow-up post. I've already answered it several times in my posts in these last few pages and over the years on these boards. Let's make it clear then, you don't think that by requiring people to declare they want to vote in the democratic primary months ahead of time, before the first debate, that the democratic party of New York is making it excessively difficult to participate for millions of people who don't think either party represents them at the time? You don't think that it is excluding people who might have been reconsidering coming into the party if Bernie was at it's head or into the Republican party with Trump? That no one believed the talking heads that said the parties were both going to nominate the status quo back then, and would have joined to support either of the candidates mentioned had they thought they would even get a chance? As for the question, I also want to make clear that you either agree or disagree or what parts you disagree with. I've payed attention to your last conversation and I don't intend to ask you to repeat yourself, I just want to be clear about what exactly you're saying. Someone who is thinking of voting for Bernie now would a year ago never have thought of voting Republican. Someone who is thinking of voting for Trump now would a year ago never have thought of voting Democrat. These people know they live in a closed primary state, they know that if they are not registered to a party that they have no say in the primary. Complaining about this is entirely no different from not voting in the election and then complaining that X won. They chose not to participate in the process.
You all place entirely too much faith in the information dissemination and general knowledge of voters regarding participation. You and I both know there are people who found out after the deadline they wouldn't be able to participate.
|
On April 26 2016 19:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 19:17 Gorsameth wrote:On April 26 2016 18:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 18:06 kwizach wrote:On April 26 2016 17:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 17:11 kwizach wrote:On April 26 2016 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 06:51 kwizach wrote:On April 26 2016 03:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 03:50 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
Is this you accusing the DNC of voter suppression or trying to argue against closed primaries? I'm saying Democrats support the largest segment of voters (Independent/No party) being excluded from getting a voice in who's on the ballot in Nov, call it what you want. False, again. Anyone can register as a Democrat to get a voice in who's going to be in on the Democratic ticket for November. Registering as a Democrat is free. Also, Independent voters/those with no party are free to create their own party if they'd like, just like everyone else. You're acting like states like New York don't have exclusionary rules that go beyond reasonable. That's fine. You are suggesting folks start their own party. That's fine. Democrats don't want to change the party. That's fine. Just don't expect us to vote for Hillary. I think it's a terrible plan for the party, but people are free to disagree. Just don't be surprised if the 70-80% of voters under 30 don't want to support that kind of party. I'm not "acting like" anything. You made the claim that Democrats "support the largest segment of voters (Independent/No party) being excluded from getting a voice in who's on the ballot in Nov". That is a false statement. In the sense that "the Constitution protects the rights of every American" is a true statement. You might of missed it, but I was wondering if you would agree that we have to end the flood of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our elections, corrupting our political system, and drowning out the voices of too many everyday Americans? That our democracy should be about expanding the franchise, not charging an entrance fee? No, in the sense that it is free for independents to register as Democrats if they want to be sure to be able to voice their support for the person they think should be on the Democratic ticket in November. I didn't miss it. It's a ridiculous question that you're asking as a springboard for a follow-up post. I've already answered it several times in my posts in these last few pages and over the years on these boards. Let's make it clear then, you don't think that by requiring people to declare they want to vote in the democratic primary months ahead of time, before the first debate, that the democratic party of New York is making it excessively difficult to participate for millions of people who don't think either party represents them at the time? You don't think that it is excluding people who might have been reconsidering coming into the party if Bernie was at it's head or into the Republican party with Trump? That no one believed the talking heads that said the parties were both going to nominate the status quo back then, and would have joined to support either of the candidates mentioned had they thought they would even get a chance? As for the question, I also want to make clear that you either agree or disagree or what parts you disagree with. I've payed attention to your last conversation and I don't intend to ask you to repeat yourself, I just want to be clear about what exactly you're saying. Someone who is thinking of voting for Bernie now would a year ago never have thought of voting Republican. Someone who is thinking of voting for Trump now would a year ago never have thought of voting Democrat. These people know they live in a closed primary state, they know that if they are not registered to a party that they have no say in the primary. Complaining about this is entirely no different from not voting in the election and then complaining that X won. They chose not to participate in the process. You all place entirely too much faith in the information dissemination and general knowledge of voters regarding participation. You and I both know there are people who found out after the deadline they wouldn't be able to participate. I am sure there are plenty of them yes. I also don't feel sorry for someone who doesn't know how voting in their own state works and I question the desire of those people to actually vote (excluding perhaps those who are voting for the first time).
|
On April 26 2016 18:02 Kickboxer wrote:
Basic income is the logical next step in human evolution and the only measure that can "fix" capitalism. This is pretty self-evident but unfortunately many people don't see it because they are fundamentally either Marxists or Libertarians. While these two ideologies might be excellent critiques of capitalism and statism respectively, they are also severely outdated, poorly thought out hermetic dogmas that never accounted for the most important variable (real-life human psychology) in the first place, perpetually focus on the wrong issue (either the abolition or "sanctity" of private property, both of which are retarded concepts) and whose proposed solutions to the very problems they were able to identify are downright inane (hello Communism / Anarcho-Capitalism).
Let's just say that abolishing private property (i.e. killing personal responsibility & individual freedom) and abolishing the state / taxes (i.e. killing society & turning humanity into a PvP server) are both some of the dumbest ideas ever.
If you want capitalism to work long-term, though, you need to constantly redistribute resources, because the nature of the system itself results in the constant redistribution of resources towards those who already possess them (the efficiency of "passive" vs. "active" income a.k.a. capital vs. labor). Since resources are finite, "unregulated" capitalism invariably results class warfare and, finally, violent revolution.
The state on the other hand is, of course, absolutely terrible at redistributing resources due to corruption, nepotism, politics, lobbying etc, which can all be neatly summed up as the human factor (incidentally, the human factor is also what prevents any kind of Marxist or Libertarian utopia from ever functioning. Humans need freedom and personal responsibility, but they also need boundaries, checks and balances, and to generate "meaning", they especially need the supportive community of a PvE server).
Basic income, surprisingly, offers an automated way of doing all the above with minimum human intervention, does away with the gluttonous and corrupt state redistribution, and allows people to take a breather from the rat race and actually do creative, meaningful work they enjoy. Which is exactly what we need right now since we're about to automate everything else.
It should be noted that humans are not intrinsically lazy. This is absolutely a scientific fact of psychology, so asserting that they are is basically just bullshit right-wing propaganda. Doing something creative is basically the meaning of life, and in addition to genuine human relations the single thing that fills every human being with real content and satisfaction. Nobody wants to be bored, except for people with issues, and flogging those into "productivity" hasn't been working anyway. Of course, humans also don't want to be packing chicken nuggets for 9 hours a day at subsistence wages that do not allow for any kind of social mobility, but that's not because they are lazy. It just doesn't make fucking sense. Under zero-social-mobility conditions you then get things like "criminal culture" where those who are capable simply turn to crime (which, let's be honest, is merely another way of doing "business"), and the rest conduct living suicide in the form of drug dependency or wasting out on the "dole".
Also, the difference between "working" and "contributing to society" is enormous. A person hanging out with the elderly or taking care that kids can safely cross the street does more for society than a person grinding an 80 hr workweek peddling bullshit, "marketing", or engaging in speculative finance. We should really stop obsessing about "work", or at least stop using it as something that describes the generation of capital and rather use it as a notion describing the generation of "happiness".
As for the "free loading" platitude, I don't even want to get started. One glance at hard numbers, and anyone can see for themselves that the only freeloaders in post-modern industrial societies are corporations and the 1%. There's not enough food stamps on this planet to pay for a single corporate subsidy / bank bailout.
Tl, dr, the free market can't work unless people "start off" with minimal existential safety, so they can invest in themselves and perform activities that make them fulfilled, in turn turning them into happy, productive members of society.
So your basic point is that the other systems implemented so far are stupid because they don't agree with your understanding of human psychology? I'd counter your specific points, but just by virtue of the fact that you are dismissive of other economic policies that were much better thought out than yours (and both effective in a lot of important ways) I'd say your argument is pretty speculative and baseless. Not to mention that this is a strawman, because real economies don't work in a purely laissez faire or communist way either (neither has ever existed).
If you can prove by example that people "invest in themselves" in a real economy that doesn't require them to work, perhaps you'd have a point. Otherwise, you're just using pseudoscience (overly simplistic feel-good pop psychology) to push a poorly thought out economic system that will fail worse than the caricatures of economies that you denounce.
|
As presidential nominees Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, respectively, call climate change a “religion” or a “bullshit … total hoax” dreamed up by China, it is deeply unfashionable for any Republican to take the issue seriously, let alone push for radical reforms to remedy it.
Kevin Faulconer, the mayor of San Diego, could therefore qualify as one of the most outlandish, as well as green-tinged, Republicans in the US. Faulconer has thrown his weight behind a binding plan to make San Diego run on 100% renewable power by 2035 – the largest American city to have such an ambition.
Faulconer is as much a product of his largely liberal surrounds as he is of his party, of course. The 49-year-old mayor will march for LGBT pride and supports a path to US citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
But San Diego’s bipartisan push to embrace clean energy such as solar and wind, while radically paring back greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050, is a glimpse into how the rancorous brawls over climate change could have been avoided across the rest of the US.
“This isn’t a partisan issue,” Faulconer told the Guardian. “I’ve said from the very beginning there’s enough partisan politics at the national level. I was a volunteer for our parks before becoming mayor; I love our natural resources, our beaches and landscapes. I feel strongly about protecting them.”
While Republicans, including Florida senator Marco Rubio have warned any action to cut emissions will raise power bills and lead to economic ruin, Faulconer has sold a vision of low-carbon innovation, jobs and clean air. San Diego’s business community is now on board, although Faulconer admitted it took “a lot of persuasion”.
“I pride myself on being fiscally responsible and environmentally conscious,” he said. “The two aren’t exclusive. I’ve never seen it as a zero sum game. We want a plan that is ambitious and leads the way for the rest of the country.”
A plan endorsed unanimously by San Diego’s Democrat-dominated council in December would see America’s eighth largest city transformed into one riddled by bicycles and public transport, with roofs swathed in solar panels. The city will switch half its fleet of vehicles to electric power and almost all of the methane from sewage and water treatment will be recycled.
Source
|
On April 26 2016 19:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 19:17 Gorsameth wrote:On April 26 2016 18:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 18:06 kwizach wrote:On April 26 2016 17:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 17:11 kwizach wrote:On April 26 2016 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 06:51 kwizach wrote:On April 26 2016 03:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 03:50 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
Is this you accusing the DNC of voter suppression or trying to argue against closed primaries? I'm saying Democrats support the largest segment of voters (Independent/No party) being excluded from getting a voice in who's on the ballot in Nov, call it what you want. False, again. Anyone can register as a Democrat to get a voice in who's going to be in on the Democratic ticket for November. Registering as a Democrat is free. Also, Independent voters/those with no party are free to create their own party if they'd like, just like everyone else. You're acting like states like New York don't have exclusionary rules that go beyond reasonable. That's fine. You are suggesting folks start their own party. That's fine. Democrats don't want to change the party. That's fine. Just don't expect us to vote for Hillary. I think it's a terrible plan for the party, but people are free to disagree. Just don't be surprised if the 70-80% of voters under 30 don't want to support that kind of party. I'm not "acting like" anything. You made the claim that Democrats "support the largest segment of voters (Independent/No party) being excluded from getting a voice in who's on the ballot in Nov". That is a false statement. In the sense that "the Constitution protects the rights of every American" is a true statement. You might of missed it, but I was wondering if you would agree that we have to end the flood of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our elections, corrupting our political system, and drowning out the voices of too many everyday Americans? That our democracy should be about expanding the franchise, not charging an entrance fee? No, in the sense that it is free for independents to register as Democrats if they want to be sure to be able to voice their support for the person they think should be on the Democratic ticket in November. I didn't miss it. It's a ridiculous question that you're asking as a springboard for a follow-up post. I've already answered it several times in my posts in these last few pages and over the years on these boards. Let's make it clear then, you don't think that by requiring people to declare they want to vote in the democratic primary months ahead of time, before the first debate, that the democratic party of New York is making it excessively difficult to participate for millions of people who don't think either party represents them at the time? You don't think that it is excluding people who might have been reconsidering coming into the party if Bernie was at it's head or into the Republican party with Trump? That no one believed the talking heads that said the parties were both going to nominate the status quo back then, and would have joined to support either of the candidates mentioned had they thought they would even get a chance? As for the question, I also want to make clear that you either agree or disagree or what parts you disagree with. I've payed attention to your last conversation and I don't intend to ask you to repeat yourself, I just want to be clear about what exactly you're saying. Someone who is thinking of voting for Bernie now would a year ago never have thought of voting Republican. Someone who is thinking of voting for Trump now would a year ago never have thought of voting Democrat. These people know they live in a closed primary state, they know that if they are not registered to a party that they have no say in the primary. Complaining about this is entirely no different from not voting in the election and then complaining that X won. They chose not to participate in the process. You all place entirely too much faith in the information dissemination and general knowledge of voters regarding participation. You and I both know there are people who found out after the deadline they wouldn't be able to participate.
You will not find an ounce of sympathy here. If you are really suggesting we should feel bad for these people, I'm not sure what to say. Not knowing how to vote, something anyone could google nowadays, is a joke.
|
On April 26 2016 22:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +As presidential nominees Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, respectively, call climate change a “religion” or a “bullshit … total hoax” dreamed up by China, it is deeply unfashionable for any Republican to take the issue seriously, let alone push for radical reforms to remedy it.
Kevin Faulconer, the mayor of San Diego, could therefore qualify as one of the most outlandish, as well as green-tinged, Republicans in the US. Faulconer has thrown his weight behind a binding plan to make San Diego run on 100% renewable power by 2035 – the largest American city to have such an ambition.
Faulconer is as much a product of his largely liberal surrounds as he is of his party, of course. The 49-year-old mayor will march for LGBT pride and supports a path to US citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
But San Diego’s bipartisan push to embrace clean energy such as solar and wind, while radically paring back greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050, is a glimpse into how the rancorous brawls over climate change could have been avoided across the rest of the US.
“This isn’t a partisan issue,” Faulconer told the Guardian. “I’ve said from the very beginning there’s enough partisan politics at the national level. I was a volunteer for our parks before becoming mayor; I love our natural resources, our beaches and landscapes. I feel strongly about protecting them.”
While Republicans, including Florida senator Marco Rubio have warned any action to cut emissions will raise power bills and lead to economic ruin, Faulconer has sold a vision of low-carbon innovation, jobs and clean air. San Diego’s business community is now on board, although Faulconer admitted it took “a lot of persuasion”.
“I pride myself on being fiscally responsible and environmentally conscious,” he said. “The two aren’t exclusive. I’ve never seen it as a zero sum game. We want a plan that is ambitious and leads the way for the rest of the country.”
A plan endorsed unanimously by San Diego’s Democrat-dominated council in December would see America’s eighth largest city transformed into one riddled by bicycles and public transport, with roofs swathed in solar panels. The city will switch half its fleet of vehicles to electric power and almost all of the methane from sewage and water treatment will be recycled. Source
Sounds cool, I really like the direction that guy is going.
Especially curious as to whether or not the power bills are going to go up or down.
|
People know voting is a thing and that there are certain things you have to do in order to vote. When the variable in this situation is purely party affiliation and not race, education or socioeconomic status it's a little ridiculous to plea ignorance or whatever.
In other news, I've been working 10+ hours 7 days a week for work (with some folks from JPM I might add). I can see why some people as they get older become more fiscally conservative and want the government to get their hands off their money.
|
On April 26 2016 22:05 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 18:02 Kickboxer wrote:
Basic income is the logical next step in human evolution and the only measure that can "fix" capitalism. This is pretty self-evident but unfortunately many people don't see it because they are fundamentally either Marxists or Libertarians. While these two ideologies might be excellent critiques of capitalism and statism respectively, they are also severely outdated, poorly thought out hermetic dogmas that never accounted for the most important variable (real-life human psychology) in the first place, perpetually focus on the wrong issue (either the abolition or "sanctity" of private property, both of which are retarded concepts) and whose proposed solutions to the very problems they were able to identify are downright inane (hello Communism / Anarcho-Capitalism).
Let's just say that abolishing private property (i.e. killing personal responsibility & individual freedom) and abolishing the state / taxes (i.e. killing society & turning humanity into a PvP server) are both some of the dumbest ideas ever.
If you want capitalism to work long-term, though, you need to constantly redistribute resources, because the nature of the system itself results in the constant redistribution of resources towards those who already possess them (the efficiency of "passive" vs. "active" income a.k.a. capital vs. labor). Since resources are finite, "unregulated" capitalism invariably results class warfare and, finally, violent revolution.
The state on the other hand is, of course, absolutely terrible at redistributing resources due to corruption, nepotism, politics, lobbying etc, which can all be neatly summed up as the human factor (incidentally, the human factor is also what prevents any kind of Marxist or Libertarian utopia from ever functioning. Humans need freedom and personal responsibility, but they also need boundaries, checks and balances, and to generate "meaning", they especially need the supportive community of a PvE server).
Basic income, surprisingly, offers an automated way of doing all the above with minimum human intervention, does away with the gluttonous and corrupt state redistribution, and allows people to take a breather from the rat race and actually do creative, meaningful work they enjoy. Which is exactly what we need right now since we're about to automate everything else.
It should be noted that humans are not intrinsically lazy. This is absolutely a scientific fact of psychology, so asserting that they are is basically just bullshit right-wing propaganda. Doing something creative is basically the meaning of life, and in addition to genuine human relations the single thing that fills every human being with real content and satisfaction. Nobody wants to be bored, except for people with issues, and flogging those into "productivity" hasn't been working anyway. Of course, humans also don't want to be packing chicken nuggets for 9 hours a day at subsistence wages that do not allow for any kind of social mobility, but that's not because they are lazy. It just doesn't make fucking sense. Under zero-social-mobility conditions you then get things like "criminal culture" where those who are capable simply turn to crime (which, let's be honest, is merely another way of doing "business"), and the rest conduct living suicide in the form of drug dependency or wasting out on the "dole".
Also, the difference between "working" and "contributing to society" is enormous. A person hanging out with the elderly or taking care that kids can safely cross the street does more for society than a person grinding an 80 hr workweek peddling bullshit, "marketing", or engaging in speculative finance. We should really stop obsessing about "work", or at least stop using it as something that describes the generation of capital and rather use it as a notion describing the generation of "happiness".
As for the "free loading" platitude, I don't even want to get started. One glance at hard numbers, and anyone can see for themselves that the only freeloaders in post-modern industrial societies are corporations and the 1%. There's not enough food stamps on this planet to pay for a single corporate subsidy / bank bailout.
Tl, dr, the free market can't work unless people "start off" with minimal existential safety, so they can invest in themselves and perform activities that make them fulfilled, in turn turning them into happy, productive members of society. So your basic point is that the other systems implemented so far are stupid because they don't agree with your understanding of human psychology? I'd counter your specific points, but just by virtue of the fact that you are dismissive of other economic policies that were much better thought out than yours (and both effective in a lot of important ways) I'd say your argument is pretty speculative and baseless. Not to mention that this is a strawman, because real economies don't work in a purely laissez faire or communist way either (neither has ever existed). If you can prove by example that people "invest in themselves" in a real economy that doesn't require them to work, perhaps you'd have a point. Otherwise, you're just using pseudoscience (overly simplistic feel-good pop psychology) to push a poorly thought out economic system that will fail worse than the caricatures of economies that you denounce.
Here's some of the "hard data" he was referring to:
Targeted transfer programs for poor citizens have become increasingly common in the developing world. Yet, a common concern among policy makers – both in developing as well as developed countries – is that such programs tend to discourage work. We re-analyze the data from 7 randomized controlled trials of government-run cash transfer programs in six developing countries throughout the world, and find no systematic evidence that cash transfer programs discourage work.
economics.mit.edu
As automation takes over the economy I really don't see another option besides providing a basic income. If most of the production in the economy is created by capital rather than labor, many people will not be able to find productive work no matter how hard they try.
Automation isn't necessarily a bad thing, but we are going to need a much more robust wealth transfer program than we have today to compensate for it.
|
Thats a bit simplistic?
How is a Person that never wanted to vote before getting his vote in if he gets "inspired" during a campaign only to realise that ist too late allready?
The only purpose that serves is protecting the Establishment from "new" voters and the above Person would most likely feel very disenfranchised by the process.
|
Eh it is a political party - in other countries there's no primaries at all, it's the party that chooses it's candidates for prime ministers etc. Or people just vote directly for it.
It makes sense that the already established party members has a say in who the candidate is, otherwise you might as well skip the process altogether and go to general election straight away if it was purely on popular vote and anyone could join at any point
|
On April 26 2016 23:12 LemOn wrote:
It makes sense that the already established party members has a say in who the candidate is, otherwise you might as well skip the process altogether and go to general election straight away if it was purely on popular vote and anyone could join at any point
Sounds good to me.
I understand your reasoning, but when you combine it with the 2 Party System it imho becomes problematic.
In most countries, where the parties decide the nominee, there are about 4-5-6+++ Parties to chose from and it only gets narrowed down after the first popular votes and it will be voted until some candidate reaches 50%.
This would also be much more efficient.
|
Our current systems work if 100% employment is a possibility to work towards. That there is a job for everyone out there, combined with a capitalist system where workers spend money on goods.
A problem occurs when not everyone can find a job (because there is not enough work to go around) and unemployed people do not have the money to keep the capitalist system rolling along.
Basic income seeks to remedy that by guaranteeing that everyone has a minimal income to spend in the system. To keep people able to buy goods which enables companies to produce which enables them to pay their workers who then spend in the system ectect.
Is it something we need today? not really, tho it can be incorporated. But it is mostly something we may well need in the future as automation reduces workforce requirements.
|
On April 26 2016 23:14 Velr wrote:I understand that reasoning, but when you combine it with the 2 Party System it imho becomes problematic anyway. Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 23:12 LemOn wrote:
It makes sense that the already established party members has a say in who the candidate is, otherwise you might as well skip the process altogether and go to general election straight away if it was purely on popular vote and anyone could join at any point Sounds good to me.
And when someone with 30% of the vote wins?
|
You have a second vote ~2 weeks later and make the candidates whiteout realistic chances drop out until someone gets 50%. Its a pretty common System.
We do this for our "small" chamber in Switzerland. Often the second or third place finnisher after round 1 wins in the end. In the first round an "extreme" candidate could get the most votes because the moderate vote is split up between 3+++ candidates. but then the "moderates" focus their vote on one of the other 1-2 remaining candidates and the resulst changes drastically.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
